Going solar! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 05:32:31 pm
content: We just went through an installation of a 5kW rooftop solar system on our home in a snowy upstate NY, so I posted a write up of the process for those interested. The post is a combination of my notes and pictures done after the fact, so it's a bit on a rambling side, but hopefully somebody will find it useful:http://kuzyatech.com/going-solarP.S. And yes, you do make energy even on gray winter days in NYS as long as snow is not completely blocking the panelsHere is the monitoring website linkhttps://www.sunpowermonitor.com/residential/kiosk.aspx?id=fea2ffc6-7e18-4686-bfe6-17a99bac26a3

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 06:11:22 pm
content: Good luck the solar. It was an interesting read. It will be fun to follow so keep us updated.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 06:16:16 pm
content: Quote from: reagle on January 18, 2014, 05:32:31 pmTax payers gave you $6500, you get 55% of what you spent in tax breaks (before or after the $6500?) and in the last 40 days you have managed to generate about $7.60 worth of electricity at retail prices?Is that right?

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 06:42:58 pm
content: Not sure which part of it you have an issue with- the lack of sun in winter in this area or the fact that NY and the feds have generous incentives for renewablesYes, we managed to generate about that much in between foot-high snowstorms and overall lack of daylight. There is a peak around 10:30 and another at noon, and by 4 we are in the dark. Some weeks it supplied about half of our usage. Also don't forget the sizable amount of cash we had to put upfront and about 8-10 years it will take to recoup. Or the fact that after each snow storm I can't wait for panels to clear themselves from snow, so i drag myself on the roof and shovel them out to get that extra 1kwH. Yes, nuts, I know. The regulars in this stuff just ignore winter losses as very tiny anyways.Once we get into longer days, the system will more than offset what we use. A neighbor's system of 2.8kW size generated about 4100kwh last year, so we are talking some serious generation capacity

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 07:10:25 pm
content: Interesting! You mentioned that the inverters need to shut off during a mains outage to protect workers and the inverters. Does this happen automatically, or does someone have to go pull the disconnect switch?

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 07:20:48 pm
content: Quote from: reagle on January 18, 2014, 06:42:58 pmSo you system might make 7300 kWh a year worth (at retail prices) about $720 and if you gave it all to tax payers they would break even in just 9 years - but you don't you get use or sell it.Politicians passing laws requiring people to have holes in their pockets wouldn't make me feel any better about picking up and pocketing the money they drop.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 07:28:50 pm
content: I'm wondering how cheaper it would be if you sourced the panels from a wholeseller and installed it yourself. For a lot of stuff it really pays off to look around for a cheap source.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 07:49:00 pm
content: Quote from: rexxar on January 18, 2014, 07:10:25 pmThere is a standard (something like UL 1741 I think) that requires all grid interconnected equipment to detect when grid goes down and shut of within a certain amount of time. So if we loose power, all inverters shutdown on their own. There is also a big red lever you can yank to disconnect it at the entrance to the house if you needed to de-energize the system for maintenance etc

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 07:51:37 pm
content: There are worse ways for government to spend money than subsidizing a distributed power generation system that will last for 30-40 years and produce no pollution once in place. That's what it's there for- guiding the young future technologies and helping them take hold. Oh, and it'd be nice if they stopped dumping money into nuke and oil industries- they are plenty mature by now. So I am not seeing this as picking up dropped money, but rather as putting my money where my mouth is- in supplying my household with energy generated right there. And in doing it, I am carrying a sizable financial as well as other risks involved in installing a system like this.Quote from: Rufus on January 18, 2014, 07:20:48 pm

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 08:02:55 pm
content: Most likely so, but I am not good balancing huge panels while climbing a ladder to the third floor height. This install required four highly qualified people working on it, and my skill set is not in what they do.Quote from: nctnico on January 18, 2014, 07:28:50 pm

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 08:19:59 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 18, 2014, 07:20:48 pmThe problem with this calculus is that retail electricity prices do not account for the negative externalities of electricity production. If you assume that the electricity generated by solar panels largely displaces power generated from coal, then using the numbers from , the $6,500 dollars result in a return of investment of 7.3 MWh / year * 20 years * (15 / TWh) = 0.0022 lives saved. At around 3 million dollars per life saved, this sounds like a pretty compelling use of taxpayer money to me even if you ignore any of the other benefits of reducing the reliance on coal.http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 09:12:21 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 18, 2014, 08:19:59 pm3 million being a completely bullshit made up number. According to your link nukes kill 1/10th as many as solar and 1/4000th as many as coal so they are obviously where the investment should go. They even produce electricity when the sun isn't shining.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 10:08:55 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 18, 2014, 09:12:21 pmI provided the reasoning for that number, which is supposed to be an estimate, not a precise number, but likely to be in the right ballpark. If you want to argue specific points, feel free to do so, but just dismissing it as bullshit is unfair. You'll get no argument from me that we wouldn't be better of if all the coal generating capacity were (or rather, had been) replaced by nuclear power, but there is a reason that not many nuclear power plants have been built in the last few decades: they are just too damn expensive to build. They're not competitive with coal/gas today (if you don't account for externalities, which seems to be a political impossibility) and won't be competitive with wind/solar within a decade or two.

author: jolshefsky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 10:13:30 pm
content: While we're trolling, IMO, dollars is not the be-all, end-all of human existence. There are other things—existence of a natural environment suitable for life (like humans)—that has a higher value for me. All things considered, dollars are an incredibly poor measure of value.(Also an upstate New York U.S. solar system owner ... 4KW, installed in 2011. And yeah, tax breaks a plenty to cover a little over half the cost.)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 11:34:37 pm
content: Quote from: jolshefsky on January 18, 2014, 10:13:30 pmSounds good, but please use your own money, not mine.Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 12:16:20 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 18, 2014, 10:08:55 pmYou just stated "At around 3 million dollars per life saved" not a shred of reasoning. In parts of the world people die for the lack of $10 worth of medicine. Is every woman in the world who isn't pregnant costing 1/3 of a million dollars a month because she could be creating a life worth 3 million dollars?

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 12:23:33 am
content: Can we get back to technical merits of a system before this spirals out of hand? Please

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 01:11:45 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 19, 2014, 12:16:20 amThe calculation is literally right there in my post. The reciprocal of 0.0022 lives / $6,500 is $3,000,000 / life. It's shocking to me that you (pretend to) not see the difference between never having been born at all and dying of, say lung cancer.

author: Harvs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:05:55 am
content: Interesting panels, efficiency is very high, albeit that doesn't really make much difference unless you've got limited roof space. It seems difficult to find a price online to compare.It's fortunate for you that you've got net metering. Here it's separate, which for a little while made people happy because we had a feed-in tariff higher than the usage tariff. When the government pulled that subsidy out and the feed-in tariff dropped to almost nothing, people have now been trying to work ways to push their power usage to the middle of the day where the peak produced power is.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:22:12 am
content: The two arrays basically take up all the south facing surfaces of my roof, so if I went with a regular panels I'd be hard pressed to find the space and would end up with a much smaller system. Since we also don't get too many sunny day and there is some shading to deal with, seeking the highest efficiency panels with MPP microinverters seemed to be the way to go. The cost (retail) is about $3.9/W with these panels.The way net metering works here so far seems to make sense- I get two counters from my meter, submit both to the utility and they subtract them when billing. And of course what I make and consume locally just gets recorded by my own production meter. The other way you are somewhat assured not to have to deal with possible changes in laws etc is that going with NYSERDA program limits your system size to about 105% of consumption. So you are more or less offsetting your own usage, and are not likely to send that much back over that amount. Even if they change what they pay for that, it's not likely to be very significant, and I can always just get an EV to use more

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:33:27 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2014, 11:34:37 pmIt's not "your" money. Your taxes go to the government, which then doles it out as it sees fit. You, nor I, noranyonegets any say in how their tax money is spent. Once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours. If you still insist, I'll pay your share of solar subsidies, and you can pay my share for military spending. Feel better now?Back on topic: It's crazy how efficient solar panels are getting. Just a few years ago, they topped out at something like 9%, IIRC. It's usually pretty interesting to read about the new state of the art nanoparticle graphene solar technologies. Home solar is a fantastic idea, it's a great start on renewable energy, until someone can get the funding to build the huge solar plants that can supply most of our needs.There's been some interesting articles on overhauling the grid, and adding ways for it to store energy, distributed over the whole grid. I think it'd be much too expensive to build something like that, though.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:39:36 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 19, 2014, 01:11:45 amSorry I misread your post. I thought you were claiming that each saved life was worth 3 million dollars while you were actually claiming that spending tax payer dollars on solar panels would cost 3 million dollars per life saved.But then you sayQuoteSo you are claiming each life saved is worth spending 3 million dollars and I'm straight back to calling bullshit.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:53:28 am
content: Sunpower is also doing something different with how cells are interconnected- there are no foil lines on the front, and all connections are from the back. That must improve efficiency as well. (They claim it also improves reliability/panel life)Here is a pictures (sorry for the snow aroundQuote from: rexxar on January 19, 2014, 02:33:27 am

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 03:16:37 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 19, 2014, 02:39:36 amThis is of course ultimately a philosophical question that can't purely be decided on empirical grounds, so calling bullshit is a category error. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy one has come up with a value of a human life to use in cost benefit analyses, and in the US, this is generally taken to be significantly more than 3 million dollars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 02:45:18 pm
content: Thank you for the kind words. Considering that just my array can be putting a few kW into the grid at any given moment even on cloudy days, it's interesting to imagine what would happen if all my neighbors were doing the same. You get local generation and local usage, offloading transmission lines and making air cleaner for everybody. Oh well, maybe some day.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 03:10:02 pm
content: Doesn't work. The grid can't handle reverse feeding lots of power. You'll see the mains voltage go up way too high. Over here they use batteries (a massive amount!) to store excess power from solar panels to keep the grid happy.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 03:18:26 pm
content: Good for getting something to offset the price, though you know what they say about a subsidy increasing the cost ( look at the price of education in the US) for the product. Here I would love to get solar, except there is no allowed feed in tarrif currently, and no ability for micro producers to get any money. Does not stop the people putting in systems, just means they pay full cost up front.Myself I just installed a small panel and battery to reduce the dependence on the grid for night time lighting, which is pretty much all solar powered now. Nice to still have light when the power goes off at night.As to too much input upping the voltage that is true, but then you can always have the grid company put in an auto tap changer that then takes care of that. Costs them money for the added parts to the standard transformer set and a slightly higher cost for the regular maintenance ( now they have to change 6 low cost contact sets during the 5 year oil filtration and drying) and that fixes it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 04:19:33 pm
content: They could just change a tap (just once) to lower the nominal voltage a little. And the voltage going up with increased production (as long as it stays in range) is a feature smart loads can use for control purposes. Basically, measure the voltage over a 24 hour period (or so) to get an average, then let voltage variations bias decisions on when to use power. It can also do that with frequency in order to distinguish between local and grid events, since voltage changes are more connected with local events and frequency changes with grid events.BTW, it would actually be interesting to do V/Hz scaling at the grid or neighborhood scale as a way of varying load. For example, during high load, it could gradually (over a period of several minutes, except when recovering from a fault) drop to 100V at 50Hz (from a nominal 120V at 60Hz). (A less extreme point is 110V at 55Hz.) Since 100V at 50Hz is nominal in some parts of Japan, electronics continue to operate properly. The V/Hz ratio is the same so transformers and motors won't have problems. Resistive loads run cooler and would actually last longer.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 05:00:28 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 19, 2014, 03:16:37 amThanks for the link to a bunch of bullshit made up numbers varying depending on if they were made up to sue tobacco companies, reduce medical insurance claims, or justify environmental spending schemes.The economic value of a life is what it leaves when it dies plus what it gave while alive less what it took and the average across all lives isn't much above zero. The cost that can rationally be justified for saving a life depends very much on the life and when it is saved. For example much of the claimed lives lost due to coal energy production are from pollution which mostly kills people a few years early. The economic benefit of saving elderly lives is almost always negative. Please remember is wasn't me that $ value of lives bullshit trying to justify tax payer spending on uneconomical energy generation.Quote from: reagle on January 19, 2014, 02:45:18 pmLol it would take around 860,000 of your neighbours installing 5kW panels to replace one small knackered 40 year old nuke. And it wouldn't anyway because nukes produce power all year round not just for a few hours of the day mostly in summer. Transmission lines would still need the same capacity and you force the conventional generating capacity to stand idle at times making the power they do generate more expensive. You can abuse the grid as free storage battery on a small scale on a large scale you end up in the hugely expensive mess Germany has. Small scale PV installations are a terrible idea which is why they would hardly exist without enormous subsidies given by idiot politicians.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 05:25:38 pm
content: Quote from: rexxar on January 19, 2014, 02:33:27 amYou are right. Once the government took money from me and gave to reagle it is not mine anymore. ;-)reagle, would you buy that solar system anyway if subsidies were not available?

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 05:28:09 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 19, 2014, 05:00:28 pmOkay, so pollution is essentially harmless because it only kills old people that are worthless anyway. This is my last post responding to you. No point in arguing with a sociopath.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 05:56:39 pm
content: Yep, just maybe a year or so from now as prices keep dropping. Most of us are not doing this for money, you do realize that?Quote from: zapta on January 19, 2014, 05:25:38 pm

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 06:33:32 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 19, 2014, 05:25:38 pmNo, like I said-- twice, once you pay your taxes, the money becomes the government's. The only say you have on how it's spent is with your votes, in theory. If you don't like how the government handles money, you're free to leave the country. If you think it's unfair that you have to pay taxes, then I suggest you go back to middle school and take a class on government.Subsidies and tax breaks are incredible incentives. The incentives exist because it's actually incredibly important that we switch to renewable energy very, very soon.If I were you, I'd be more upset that the government is spending "your" tax money on coal subsidies. You do know that coal is going to run out in a few years, right? Giving individuals subsidies and tax breaks to set up their own solar or wind generation makes a whole lot of sense. The idea is to give people an incentive to spendtheirmoney on this system, saving everyone money because it makes power cheaper, and since the individual is bearing a lot of the cost, it saves everyone money. The government spending a billion dollars on individual solar systems is a whole lot cheaper then spending two billion dollars on one coal plant.This is all forgetting the decreased carbon output, new jobs in a new industry, it's good for the economy because of the new jobs, etc etc. Frankly, I'd much rather the government spend "my" tax money on solar than military.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 06:36:15 pm
content: If we look at all the subsidies going to existing oil/coal and nuke companies, and the profits many of those industries are rolling in, this discussion becomes pretty much academic

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 06:58:07 pm
content: Quote from: reagle on January 19, 2014, 06:36:15 pmIt's almost like people don't understand that fossil fuels arefinite, whereas the sun will be there for a few more billion years. And not to mention climate shift...Micro generation is the way to go, I think. Especially with consumers bearing half the cost of the system. The distributed nature of the system would help a lot with lines going down, and would all but eliminate the need for huge, expensive plants. Once the panels get more efficient, and battery technology advances some, this would be a great way to get rid of coal.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 08:34:08 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 19, 2014, 05:28:09 pmSociopath? Just because he does not want the government giving his money to others?Don't expect everybody to care about your pet cause.

author: rexxar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 10:29:06 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 19, 2014, 08:34:08 pmEither a sociopath or just stupid. The government gives the GOVERNMENT'S money to whomever they see fit. You don't get to pick and choose. I'm angry that "my" tax money pays for cluster bombs to drop on civilians, but I don't go and harass every pro-military person on the internet about how they're spending "my" money on guns.The point is that tax money does not belong to individual tax payers once their taxes are paid. If you feel you have some sort of say in how tax money is spent, go harass your congressperson.There has to be some sort of incentive for individuals to install home solar systems because fossil fuels arenot sustainable.Micro generation like home solar systems is the only economically feasible way to start making the shift towards renewable energy. What you should be concerned about is the disgusting amount of money that the US government gives out to oil and coal companies, or that they use taxpayer money to bail banks out of the holes they dug themselves into.The government is not just giving these people money. You're forgetting that these individuals have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars of their own money, and they might recoup their investment over a decade. What the government is doing is paying for part of their solar system, the individual is still responsible for a not-insignificant amount of money. The point of all this is to make solar power more attractive to homeowners. Because we very desperately need to get away from fossil fuels.By far, solar power is the least awful thing the government spends money on. You should be concerned with far more pressing matters, like the government paying for coal plants, or not suing BP for every cent they're worth, or maybe the fact that we spend more on military than the next 10 countries combined.I reiterate:tax money is NOT YOUR MONEYTax money belongs to theUS GOVERNMENTwhich can use it however they see fit. You, as an individual haveABSOLUTELY NOsay in how your individual portion is spent, and in fact, the only say you get AT ALL is with your votes. Please stop being ignorant.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 10:34:34 pm
content: Quote from: rexxar on January 19, 2014, 10:29:06 pm

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 10:49:14 pm
content: Alright,I propose a new topic for the flame war- Microinverters vs DC string arraysThat's my next writeup:http://kuzyatech.com/on-the-pluses-of-microinvertersThere, back to electronics!

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2014, 10:58:00 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 19, 2014, 08:34:08 pmRead his post again. He is saying that it is not justifiable to spend more money on saving a life by reducing pollution than what (I assume) that person's expected impact on the GDP would be. (He is of course patently wrong about the impact of pollution on the economy, but the complete and utter lack of any kind of compassion is what I'm getting at here.)

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 12:37:05 am
content: Quote from: rexxar on January 19, 2014, 10:29:06 pmWhen it comes to subsidise for domestic solar power installations you absolutely have a choice not to take the money.As I already posted here idiot politicians making laws requiring people have holes in their pockets would not make me feel happy about picking up and pocketing the money that falls out of them.Quote from: rexxar on January 19, 2014, 10:29:06 pmMicro generation schemes are utterly crap (apart from heat pumps in some circumstances and possibly some CHP systems both because locality can make good use of the heat) they are not a feasible way to move to renewable energy they are pathetic political gesturing - mostly prompted by Chicken Little CO2 is going to kill all of us bullshit.There is no source of renewable energy which can satisfy our requirements without storage and we have no form of energy storage which isn't hugely expensive and environmentally damaging. That is the problem and it isn't solved by stupid micro generation schemes.Quote from: tjaeger on January 19, 2014, 10:58:00 pmI'll say again it wasn't me that started putting $ value on people's lives to justify spending on PV installations it was you. All I am doing is insisting that you use realistic $ values not made up bullshit numbers to do it.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 02:30:51 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 20, 2014, 12:37:05 amIt's not only "micro generation" that suffers from this, but basically every renewable generation that uses wind and sun. And it seems that most, if not all, proponents are unable or unwilling to consider the implications of that. Going 100% wind and solar will become extremely wasteful, as far as resources are concerned.Just as an example, lets assume some village, on average, requires 1MWh per day. One solution is to put up loads and loads of generating stations all over the country, since in the case of wind it will always be blowing somewhere. That way, if there is no wind locally, it could come from a more distand station. Howeever, that way would require an ridiculous excess of generating capacity that would mostly sit idle due to no wind. Not to mention the ridiculous extensions to the grid that would have to be made.Another way it to use storage to store the locally generated excess energy. But here again, the number will become laughably big rather quickly. Going by the numbers from WP regarding installed capacity vs. electricity generated by wind and PV in Germany, it comes out at about 20% of the installed capacity will actually be generateed. With the above example, it would then require installations with a generating capacity of 5MWh per day, assuming all storage is 100% efficient. If it peaks out, the excess has to be stored, so the storage needs to be rather big as well. However, these nuumbers are rather bogus anyways, since it considers only one day. Instead there could be a week or more without any wind and insufficient sunlight. So the storage needs to be several times bigger. Also, generating capacity has to be several times larger, just to be able to fill up the storage quickly enough once almost depleted.Here in Germany they will happily tell you that, uh, now solar and wind has reached a price point per kWh that is below that of conevtional electricity. Buut that is not really true. For one, this applies only to systems installed _now_, while we still have to pay subsidies up to 20 years for the older installations. Plus, they use a really silly trick: They compare the price per kWh of renewables at generating time to the price of conventional that the end customers pay. If they would compare it to the generating cost of conventional, it would become instantly clear that even the most modern systems are still much more expensive per kWh. Add to that the extra cost that will come with storage systems, which wouldn't be for free either. They need to be built, operated and maintained.I'm not saying that it could never be done. And i'm pretty aware that fossil fuel resources will be exhausted some day. But it would be really great if the renewable-energy proponents (at least those here in Germany) would start to do honest comparisions and calculations. The way they do it right now is just silly. Same goes for the grid itself. They complain about the oh-so-bad traditional electricity comapnies and grid operators, saying that they do not upgrade the grid fast and big enough. But then, why should they, consideren the way thing go over here? They built these grids for their power plant parks. They are forced to feed in renewables into their grids. They have to pay ridiculously high tarriffs to those solar and wind folks. Who, in turn, don't spend a penny on the grid. They want to use it, but not pay for it. And then they wonder that the grid operators have no incentive?Look at what problems such massive subsidies into renewable energy can cause. The grid becomming unstable, our neighbours thinking about blocking us from feeding in even more renewable energy. Blindly installing more and more capacity, but only recently they start to notice that, uh, some storage would be neat as well. We are now at a point were sometimes we have to sell electricity at negative prices at the EEX. Yes, negative. That means that whoever "buys" it, will get some money on top of it. Not only giving the energy away for free, but paying them to take it.And please, the stuff about switching to renewables helping the economy. Look at Germany and what situation the sollar companies are in right now. Say hello to China, who will gladly take our money in exchange for cheap solar panels, while domestic manufacturers go down the drain. It's not as rosy as the proponents here want to make it look.Greetings,Chris

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 03:37:42 am
content: It is possible to greatly reduce the storage requirement by using smart control. In general, try to use energy as it's being produced. For example, use cheap thermal mass (e.g. a tank of water) instead of batteries for HVAC, hot water, and refrigeration. With those big loads out of the way, it won't take much battery to cover the remaining loads. Use biofuels as backup and a more or less carbon free lifestyle is possible.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 05:03:36 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 03:37:42 amProblem is that the majority of electricity is used for industrial applications. Private consumers are only a quarter. In Germany, in 2011, almost 47% was used by industry, almost 15% for commercial, public stuff about 9%, traffic 3%, and private households about 25%. Plus, regular power plants also produce a lot of heat that is used commercially. With those power plants gone, something else has to make up for that and produce that heat somehow. It gets even worse if we look at primary energy use, that is, fuels used in general and not only for electricity generation.Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 03:37:42 amThe way biofuels are produced today is pure insanity. We are literally burning food for that. Before even considering to do that, we should better make sure that we solved the world's hunger problem first. And even if we grow plants that would otherwise not be used for food, they still have to be grown somewhere. With all the problems that come with industrialized agriculture. And we already start to grop crops for biofuel production in areas where rain forrests used to be. Those poor folks there can earn money by producing those crops, so they hack down the forrests and plant biofuel-crops instead. I'm pretty sure that this is not really what "bio" or "sustainable" is supposed to be.Greetings,Chris

author: george graves
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 07:00:02 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 18, 2014, 07:28:50 pmWhat happens to the incentives if you do it yourself?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 09:32:37 am
content: Quote from: george graves on January 20, 2014, 07:00:02 amYou probably won't get them. It is also a form of subsidised labour.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 10:16:50 am
content: I think you would still get tax credits, I am not so sure of the NYSERDA rebate and the whole paperwork and dealing with utilities side, but I'd imagine it's all doable. You would also need a licensed electrician or at least an inspector.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 01:01:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 20, 2014, 12:03:43 pmSodium sulphur batteries have been around for 50 years. If they were economical for time shifting electricity generation they would already be in widespread use so generating companies could charge them with overnight excess capacity instead of selling it off cheap.Pumped storage is great it is just really expensive building the mountains it requires.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 03:35:07 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on January 20, 2014, 05:03:36 amIn the US, the corn used to make ethanol is not the same as the corn you eat. It's still not particularly efficient (switchgrass is far superior in that respect), but fuel corn can grow where food corn cannot. It's also possible to make biofuel from inedible byproducts of food crops, which arguably actually makes food cheaper.I think what should be done is to encourage growing fuel crops in front and back yards. With proper selection, it's possible to also have them shade the house during the summer, saving more energy.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 05:15:18 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 20, 2014, 03:11:16 pmMaybe you should tell Germany about them so they wouldn't have to pay someone to take away their excess solar generated electricity during the summer.It seems they already knowhttp://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081211/162701/So why 5 years on with Germany having an obvious problem and a great willingness to piss away money on renewable energy schemes isn't there widespread installation?Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 03:35:07 pmIn earlier posts I was considering comparing micro generation schemes with micro farming schemes because the ridiculously low efficiency and labour intensity of micro farming schemes would be easier to see - I guess not.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 05:43:21 pm
content: Quote from: reagle on January 19, 2014, 12:23:33 am'Going solar' using other people money also has moral aspects. ;-)

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 05:56:26 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 20, 2014, 05:15:18 pmMake electricity free during part of the day during the summer for the first X customers to sign up. Soon, there will be no problem. They could also use some sort of remote control to turn on loads like A/C units and water heaters when there's excess generation.QuoteFactory farming is much less efficient than sustainable farming. The claims that factory farming is efficient are (of course) lies from the factory farming industry itself.http://www.upworthy.com/3-lies-about-food-youre-used-to-hearing-and-might-even-believe?c=tkp1It's possible to select a biofuel that more or less takes care of itself, such as switchgrass. Then all it takes is for a company to come around and harvest it once a year. Much less "labor intensive" than the typical lawn.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 07:06:26 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 20, 2014, 05:15:18 pmGuess what. The proponents already found a solution to that problem. Guess what it is? Simple: It's not the excess solar that causes this, but the conventional power plants, because they cant be shut-off and restarted quickly enough, or even have their poower production regulated quickly. See? Just redefine things and have the blame shifted!Little fun fact: Since the feed-in-tarriffs that the renewables get are gradually reduced for new installations, people have bought more and more PV panels from China, otherwise there wouldn't be enough profit in it. Now there is a point where the growth of new PV installlations is no longer increasing, but even starts to decline. I am 100% sure that no one would put a huge solar installation on their roofs if they would have to sell the produced electricity on the regular market, for example on the EEX. The profit margin would simply be not enough. So much for wanting this because it's good for the environment... Sure, there is the odd person who will still it for that reason, but the majority simply would not. And keep in mind, the feed-in-tarrif one gets is fixed for 20 years, to the amount that it was set to at the time of the installation going online.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 07:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 05:56:26 pmNice idea, but impossible to implement. What you propose is basically telling people to put up expensive solar and wind installations out there for little in return. Just won't happen. There are far too many NIMBY's (and by extension, those that then say "Not Out Of My Pocket") out there. See, saving and protecting the environment is all fine and dandy, as long as it hasn't to be paid for, grid lines have to be installed, wind parks are at a visible distance, pump-storage facilities are not in the oh-so-beautiful mountains, etc.Greetings,Chris

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 08:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on January 20, 2014, 07:10:57 pmCheck out Windfall (2010) on Netflix. It is a fascinating documentary that shows real life aspects of living with local windmills and how it affects small communities.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 09:21:01 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 20, 2014, 08:47:48 pmAlso check out Gasland. In summary, fossil fuels are even dirtier. Thus, conservation should be the #1 way to go greener.BTW, a good counterargument to the arguments that alternative energy is not perfect is "So what should we use instead?" If they suggest fossil fuels or nuclear, you can push back with the recent environmental disasters associated with them. (BP oil spill, Fukushima nuclear disaster, numerous fracking-related groundwater contamination disasters, West Virginia coal chemical spill, etc.) And none of them have to do with global warming...

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 09:56:56 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 09:21:01 pmI think it is a big mistake to generalize that nuclear is bad. While i agree that the nukes currently in use are quite bad, there are other reactor types. Keep in mind what the background of the current nukes is, which has nothing to do with domestic electricity generation. While things like TWR's and LFTR's are not yet commercially available, they are far from being something new. In fact they are half a century old. Only "drawback" they have, which blocked them from implementation back then, is that they are unusable for production of fissible material to be used in bombs and similar.Another aspect of current nukes is the waste they generate and the sheer stupidity of the greens to have that vitrified. They have the express goal to make what is currently considered waste unusable for all times. That is, instead of developing technologies that will burn that fuel, and thus greatly reduce it's amount and thus the time it will be around, they activiely push for keeping it as is. I can only guess that the reasoon is that otherwise they would have nothing to complain about. Check here:http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-08.html. Given that current nukes only burn a tiny percentage of the nuclear fuel, and that the resulting "waste" could well be burned by over 90% in reactor types like TTWR and LFTR, it becomes pretty clear that this is extremely wasteful. Yes, the resulting waste would then be much more radioactive. However, it would also be active for magnitudes less time.No matter how i look at it, going 100% renewable by means of wind, solar and biofuel is simply not viable/affordable. Extreme amounts of storage would need to be implemented. Massive amounts of excess capacity would have to be built, on of the reasons being to handle/recharge the storage in a timely manner. All that costs a lot of money, much more than conventional generation. Which would still be needed anyways as backup in case renewable generation is too low for too long a period of time to fill up the storages again. I'm always surprised that on forums that deal with engineering, where i would suspect a lot of people being able to crunch soe basic numbers, such facts are basically ignored, or sometimes even lied about.Which is also becomming a problem already, even without usable storage concepts put in place. The best way to have backup capacity is with natural gas power plants. Because these can be regulated very well, and turned on/off very quickly. However, they are expensive to build and expensive to run. For that reason operators are dropping plans to build new gas power plants, even go so far to not use some of those that have just been built, and innstead go for cheap and dirty coal power plants. It is more economical for them to let coal plants run, even if the generated electricity is not needed, than to use gas power plants. In that way, renewables are currently causing an indirect increase in burning more coal, and thus CO2 emissions.It simply is a matter of scale. We are far away from all-renewable, and see what problems it already starts to cause in Germany. We made the big mistake of blindly pushing for more and more generating capacity, and completely negleted issues like storage and grid extension. Which led to extreme stupid things like windfarms that have to be disconnected from the grid when the wind is good, while the owners of them still get paid the full tarriffs for electricity they only could have fed into the grid. Or offshore windfarms that have no connection to the grid. Not only do the operators of these get money, they have to use fossil fuels to keep the rotors moving all time, otherwise that stuff would break.Look at how the proponents demand massive grid extension, but are unwilling to contribute to the cost of doing so, and also don't want new HT lines errected. After all, it's much simpler to blame others instead of sitting back for once and think abouot the implications of what they want. Heck, they even come up with silly ideas like smart meters that will turn on your washing machine when the electricity is available and cheap. Like, at night. Sure, if you have your own house, you may do that. But the vast majority of people here live in rented appartements, in multi-appartement buildings. They and their neighbours will sure have a lot of fun when loots of machines randomly turn on at night. Not to mention things like insurrance issues that will arise when stuff goes wrong with machinery that is automatically operated unsupervised.Greetings,Chris

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2014, 11:44:47 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 20, 2014, 09:21:01 pmHow anyone can call Fukashima a disaster it not having killed anyone the while tsunami which caused it killed 20,000 is beyond me.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 05:28:45 am
content: I'm having a hard time understanding how wind turbines could possibly lead to negative electricity prices. Seems like it should be trivial to feather the blades during times of excess supply. Can somebody explain?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 05:32:51 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on January 20, 2014, 11:44:47 pmPerception is everything.

author: LukeW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 05:40:58 am
content: Far better to take the huge amounts of taxpayer money that is spent subsidizing this stuff and spend it on nuclear power instead IMO, which will actually provide gigawatt-scale reliable, scalable, high-availability energy at a lower price, which actually replaces the output of coal plants and enables coal plants to be shut down.People love to talk about "a million solar roofs" in Australia for example, but 10^6 * 1kW is only 1 GW, or maybe a couple of GW if the average installed capacity per roof is a couple of kW.But that "one million solar roofs", despite all the incentives, FITs and subsidies, is only about equal to 1 Hazelwood or Loy Yang A etc. in terms of nameplate power capacity - and that low (20% or so) availability factor is just so unreliable, so it is in no way close to being an actual replacement for a coal-fired plant, not even just one.

author: John_L
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 08:21:18 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike[/quoteIf you believe or subscribe to above then you don't have any "REAL" idea about the subject.You should be very careful about foot in mouth disease!Apologies for going off topic, can't stand people spreading "new religion type" disinformation.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 08:24:16 am
content: Traditional nuclear power is a dead end for lots of good reasons and the mythical thorium reactors will remain on the drawing board. The facts on the ground in theUS,GermanyandJapanare proof of that. In the end - once you factor in the amount of energy and resources required to build and maintain a nuclear plant and their very limited lifespan and energy and expenses needed to safely decommission them -nuclear power plants provide very little or no net energyand more society detriment than benefit. The interesting (and frightening) question is how will the world deal with the task of safely decommissioning the 437 commercial nuclear power plants currently operating in a future of declining energy resources.Renewable energy is the future - despite the protestations of all the political partisan, "don't spend my money on subsidies" (while ignoring orders of magnitude greater public subsidy of fossil fuel and nuclear power) whining.We're currently bouncing along on the fossil fuel production plateau, held aloft above theSeneca Cliffin a Wile E. Coyote moment in history, sucking with our straws at the milk shake dregs of the last remaining easily reached oil reserves.Lots of oil left in the ground. Most of it will stay therefor several reasonsYeah, we won the lottery when we discovered the millions of years of condensed solar energy contained in the black gooey stuff. But since then we've spent the last 100 years blowing the winnings on hookers and cocaine (aka energy inefficient buildings, autos and disposable plastic crap).Unfortunately expansion of renewable energy is likely to be too little too late. If we'd started in earnest 40 years ago maybe, but now at best it will likely serve only as a palliative remedy to keep some lights on, some food cold and (hopefully a few power supplies and scopes running) in a future of declining energy resources...But in the meantime party on dudes..

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 09:17:46 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 21, 2014, 05:28:45 amThe owners of wind turbines get a fixed price for what they produce (government subsidies). Turning a wind turbine off makes it lose it's profitability. The grid has to give priority to electricity produced by wind turbbines and solar panels. The particular problem in Germany is that they put the solar panels and wind turbines in the north of the country while the major industry area is in the middle AND they forgot to upgrade the grid to take the electricity from the north to the middle of the country. In the summer there is a lot of excess electricity which gets dumped into the Netherlands and Denmark for free or even a negative price.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 09:31:45 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 21, 2014, 09:17:46 amWhen it comes to government/regulator related activities, if something sounds too funny/stupid/absurd, "usually" 99.99% there were/are fishy deals behind the stage.Curious if owners of the middle country's electricity companies is backed by powerful entity like huge enterprise/corporation.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 09:49:51 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 21, 2014, 05:28:45 amSeveral factors. First, every wind turbine operator will get a fixed feed-in-tarriff that will not change for 20 years. Second, grid operators _must_ feed in renewables and pay said tarriffs. Now, imagine a period of little wind but high demand for electricity. Regular power plants are what mainly generates that electricity. Now some wind comes up and lasts for a while. Suddenly all these wind turbines start generating electricity, which the grid operators must feed into the grid. This leads to a massive excess of energy available, since conventional power plants need hours to regulate up/down or turn on/off. To get rid of that excess, it is sold to other countries in the EU. if they also have almost enough production capacity at that point, pretty much no one will buy it, until it becomes really cheap. This then can spiral downwards to negative prices.The only situation where wind farms can be switched off is when the grid is about to collapse. The wind farm operators don't care, because even then they will get the fixed feed-in-tarriff, only now for the electricity they _could_ have produced. All this is also one of the reasons why the electricity go up and up. Everyone has to pay a given amount per kWh for the "EEG Umlage". That money is then used to make up for the difference between the real, low marketprice and the idiotically high feed in tarriffs that renewables get.Greetings,Chris

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 10:08:54 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2014, 08:24:16 amDeja vu all over again. They don't learn."In 1956, M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil to predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1971."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 11:57:03 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2014, 10:08:54 amYep

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 04:27:06 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2014, 11:05:03 amJust sit back for a while, re-read what you just wrote, and try to figure out why that is pretty much in dishonest-land, and also what the implications are of that statement.Hint: The grid works just fine for the purpose it was built and paid for, namely the transport of energy produced by the electricity companies with their existing and planned generating station capacity together with the existing and expected demand. That is, a dependable and controllable set of power plants built to satisfy the current and projected demand. It is the intermittent renewable energy that causes the problems, since it is forced to have it fed into the grid. It was (and still largely is) completely ignored that those producers of renewable energy should also have to spend money to extend and maintain the grid. In short: They cash in nice profits from the electricity they generate, no matter what the real price would be, while having no obligations at all to pay for the grid.Tell me, what incentive as a grid operator would you have to extend the grid capacity and subsequently pay more for maintenance and management of the grid, if you don't get paid for that? Why is it that we have the plan to install more and more renewable generating capacity, giving the owners of such systems tarriffs per kWh that are a mutliple of the normal price, and now have them complain about a grid that they never paid a dime for, that they are connected to and use for free, instead of those folks putting up their own grid or paying for extending an managing the existing one? And while at it, it would be a great idea to have them pay for the storage that their preferreed choise of generating technology requires to make useful. Let's see how much profit would be left for them then, and what incentive they would then have.Then, it should give you a good clue about the real world feasibility of using renewable energy. If the claims of the proponents were true, that solar and wind are so cheap now, also because wind and sun don't send invoices, then why is it that the big electricity companies don't do it on a massive scale? After all, they are no charities and are always interrested to make more profits. One has to conclude that in the real world, when exposed to real market conditions, renewables are simply not profitable or feasable. After all, the know exactly how much it costs to install and maintain the required generating capacity, storage systems and grid.Greetings,Chris

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 04:30:59 pm
content: Quote from: LukeW on January 21, 2014, 05:40:58 amLooks like that's exactly what they're doing in England (the "Economics" section is well worth reading).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_stationNote the sheer insanity of this project. Without the inevitable cost overruns, that's £16 billion for 3.2 GW, which translates 8.20 USD/W. That doesn't include fuel, insurance, decommissioning and waste disposal. For a plant that will come online 10 years from now at the earliest. Feed in tariffs are 150 USD/MWh (adjusted for inflation) guaranteed for 35 years after the plant is built, so at least until 2048.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 04:58:49 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2014, 04:44:02 pmYou will love it in the DPRK.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 05:37:33 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on January 21, 2014, 04:27:06 pmChris, I get it that you're frustrated about the current regulatory environment in Germany and I'm somewhat sympathetic to that viewpoint (I think most people would agree that a system of feed-in tariffs is suboptimal). But that has very little bearing on whether investment in renewable energy is a good idea or not.The paragraph I quoted above is a straw-man, nobody here claimed that in Germany, unsubsidized wind and solar is competitive with conventional power (which is of course subsidized in various ways as well). But prices have come down substantially in the past, and if that trend continues, they will be competitive in the not too distant future. This is of course all without considering externalities, which is all a look at current market conditions can tell you. Coal is hugely damaging to the environment and human health, and once you factor that in, things look very different.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 07:05:43 pm
content: Ignoring the huge public subsidies to traditional power generation is folly.Even so, photovoltaic energy may already be competitive without incentives in Europe:Photovoltaics: new policy challenges for Europe

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 07:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 21, 2014, 07:05:43 pmAny credible reference that compares subsidies per KWH generated?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2014, 09:01:35 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 21, 2014, 07:27:07 pmFair comparisons are difficult for sure. This is true whether you are looking at total cost per kWh or just the cost of subsidies.Are you arguing that there are no public subsidies of traditional electricity generation?Critical questions:1) Are you comparingcurrentsubsidies orcumulative subsidiesover the lifetime of the energy source?I can produce a lot of electricity by burning a gallon of gas in one of my efficient Honda generators, but once I've burned it it's gone.But one of my solar panels will go on producing electricity for 30 + years! The upfront costs of PV electricity are very high - but overthe liftime of a PV panel they are very low.Any engineer should be able to understand the difference between upfront costs versus ongoing/lifetime costs.What is the cost/kWh produced of a fossil fuel based power plant after 1 yr? After 30?2) Are you includingallexternal costs and subsides- including the geopolitical and both short and long term environmental costs?What is the public cost of maintaining the procurement and security division (aka US military) of the Big Oil companies?What is the cost of the 2 Iraq wars?What is the cumulative public cost of environmental damage?I'm sure you will dispute that these should be included but you're in the minority.Here'sthe best meta analysis of the data I've seen - but it only looks at present subsidies and also does not include all external costs and subsidies as I outline above.Even ignoring these issues the current public subsidies of traditional electricity generation are enormous.Which was, of course, my point -The amount of energy stored in a barrel of oil is tremendous! And there is no question that on a simple, present cost basis nothing else comes close to fossil fuels for immediate available electricity generation capacity No one can dispute that - after all fossil fuels are just a highly concentrated storage medium for solar energy. But that is not the question and anyone who pretends that is a fair basis of comparison is being disingenuous.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 03:36:24 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 21, 2014, 04:44:02 pmThen the proponents should get their asses up make it work for them, simple as that. Does not matter who owned the grid decades ago, and to whom it was sold. My point still stands: It was build for a specific purpose, to accomodate a specific infrastructure, and it does that quite well.No one is blocking the proponents from spending money on grid extension. No one is stopping them from building storage systems. But it simply is utterly dishonest of them to try and blame the grid operators for not bowing to their needs for free. Nor is it honest to blame conventional power generation for negative prices due to excessive power generation. While it is certainly true that conventional power plants can't be regulated in power output nilly-willy, it _is_ the intermittent production of renewable electricity that is causing the problem: If the grid operators would not be forced by law to feed in renewables, no matter what, these situations would not happen.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 04:21:09 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 21, 2014, 05:37:33 pmI am well aware that new technologies need investment to get them going. No problem with that. And i am also aware that fossil fuels are not the way to go, simp,y because of the pollution they cause and the naturally limited supply of them. They are better used in situation where they can be used directly and where a replacement with electric operation is not as simple.Quote from: tjaeger on January 21, 2014, 05:37:33 pmNo, it is not a strawman, i'm afraid. The facts speak for themselves. Here in Germany, the EEG ("Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz", laws for renewable enrgy) started out as the "Stromeinspeisungsgesetz", electricity feed in law, in 1991. It became the EEG in 2000. This means it is going on for over 20 years now. All that time we are pumping massive amounts of money into this. Cheap loans for the people who want to build that stuff. A not-so-small premium on every kWh that everyone pays into this ("EEG Umalge", and of course, this only applies to private customers and small/medium businesses. Large businesses can be exempt from that).All that time it was only "build more generation capacity". No one cared about the grid or storage. Pretty much everyone is into it just for the stupid fixed in tarriffs. Those become extremely high, and extremely stupid in case of PV. After all, we are surely not a sunny region in the world. On average, PV in Germany produces about 10% of the nameplate capacity that is installed. That is, a 10MW installation only gives out 1MW on average. Now take a look athttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz#Photovoltaikand scroll down a bit to the table called "Leistungsabhängige Fördersätze in ct/kWh bis März 2012". The numbers in there are what people get for every kWh of PV generation they have installed, fixed for 20 years. And the thing called "Selbstverbrauchsvergütung", geass what that is? Yes, they get that money for using the electricity they produced themselves with their own PV installation.I'm sorry, bus this is pure madness. This is not fair in any way, shape or form. And i don't know about you, but i think that a technology, that is unable to stand for it's own after more than 20 years of ridiculously high subsidies, has very little chances to get profitable on it's own any time soon. And in any case, after 20 years i think it is enough. They had their chance, they had over 20 years to get stuff going on its own, and they failed.In that table, please also note how the tarriffs go down each year for new installations. They now want to change the EEG to get an even steeper decline, plus removing some of the other benefits that these folks got in the past. Not only for PV, but for wind as well. And guess what happened? Look atthis document:http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/bnetza_111_kurz.pdf. Check page 6. This graph shows the newly installad capacity for solar for each year. See the almost doubling between 2009 and 2010? Compare to what happened to the tarriffs using the table i linked to on WP. [EDIT: Hint, they rushed to install new systems while they still can grab the high tarriffs] Then look at the same table for 2012, and note the sharp reduction for the "Selbstverbrauchsvergütung" there. Now look at the other document again, and check how much new PV capacity was installed for 2013. Notice something? [EDIT: Another hint: this is the point where it is no longer that profitable even for private people to install new stuff]It simply is not that much about clean energy generation, saving the environment, or other such things. It is about grabbing boatloads of money while they can, at least for most people. And they can grab that money only because of the silly laws, that completely borked up the issue of grid and storage, for which (in my opinion) those folks should have been forced to contribute at the same time. Heck, over 50 Eeuro-Cent per kWh for a small system in 2004? For 20 years? Why not force them to give back 15 Cnets of that to go into grid extension and storage systems? Because it is friggin obvious that they have no incentive nor the will to do that on their own, at least not in the amount neccessary.That is what upsets me, and why i think that "100% renewable" is just a pipe dream. Even today, with the massive reductions in cost per kW installed, it is still much, much more expensive than conventional power generation. And that is _only_ generation. Keep in minnd that with renewables, massive storage systems and massive grid extensions are a _must_, otherwise they can not do things like providin baseload, which is required if it really should be 100% renewable. But those things don't come for free. Their cost, and the cost of operating and maintaining them, has to be added on top of the already expensive price for renewable electricity generation.And keep in mind, even if we would stop any EEG sunsidies for new installations immediately, we would still have to pay for the already existing ones until their 20-year thing runs out. I can only repeat myself: it is dishonest if the proponents tell us that it gets cheaper, and new installations generate cheaper than conventional, while they compare the fixed feed-in tarrifs with the electricity price per kWh for end consumers. Heck, even if you directly compare the "Gestehungskosten". that is, how much it costs to produce a given amoun of energy (with all things considered), they are still about twice as expensive than coal, which is why coal is used so much now. Even if they would come down to the same price, it would be a price that neglects storage and grid, which in turn would bring it back above the price of conventional right away.Really, 20 years and still can't stand on their own. We have thrown about 20 billion Euros at it in 2013 alone, only for the "Vergütung", ie.e what the people get for the kWh's they produce. And still no suitable solution for storage, instead we throw away that expensively paid for electricity for next to nothing, or even put money on top of it whhen the price goes negative.I'm sorry, but i simply don't see it as a viable system, given all these facts. If you think it can be done, feel free to crunch some numbers and show them to me. The amount of electricitty required per year is known, as is how much renewables can produce, how big storage needs to be for a given amount of energy, how much each system (wind, pv, etc.) generates during the course of a year, etc. Look these numbers and tell me how much it would cost. Make sure to have the storage systems big enough, after all, we do have periods of little sund and virtually no wind that can last for weeks. There must be enough stored to supply all the demand during that time. And the generation capacity must be large enough to fill it up in the few days inbetween. Yes, this leads to a massive amount excess generating capacity that is not needed most of the time. But it is required nonetheless.And please, whatever you come up with, don't make it so that the result would bring us back 150 years in time, where electricity was limited. And don't come up with stuff that tries to control when i can use how much electtricity, like turning on washing machines at night, etc. We, as civilization, came as far as we did because for some time now we have energy available when we need it.Oh, and i forgot: While you are number crunching, don't forget to include the added demand of electricity for heat applications and traffic, something that is now fulfilled by process heat generated at the conventioonal power stations, and fossil fuels. After all, we want 100% renewable, right?Sorry for the long rant, but i have the impression that many folks simply do not understand the implications and scales involved.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 04:31:37 am
content: Oh, and just a fun fact. Yes, PV can be profitable. Highly so. Just not the way you think it is. Mr. Asbeck, owner of Solarworld, another PV company that is getting into trouble now due to the Chinese producing stuff much cheaper, bought himself a nice expensive Villa. Oh, and Solarworld is exempt from paying the "EEG Umlage" as well. Funny that, isn't it?Greetings,Chris

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on January 22, 2014, 04:21:09 amTwo points. One: Prices really have come down _a lot_ (http://www.photovoltaik-guide.de/pv-preisindex). A short time of consolidation is expected on the PV market, but prices are expected to continue to fall after that. Ten years from now, PV will probably cost about as much as hard coal. Two: You really have to consider externalities when making these comparisons. If you assume a very conservative 5¢/kWh in externalities for coal, PV and especially wind can easily compete.QuoteI think you're complaining here that incentives work.QuoteYes, storage is important and obviously somewhat of a wildcard. Paradoxically, solar currently smooths out peak demand (at least in the summer), so incentives for investment in storage are low right now. So for now, we have to rely on fossil power sources that can be ramped up and down relatively fast.QuoteI won't fall for that one. I'm certainly not able to centrally plan electricity generation 50+ years into the future, no matter if there are any renewables involved or not. What's important is that now and in the near future, wind and solar make sense on a marginal basis. The grid can take a doubling of installed solar power. And I really don't care who pays for necessary upgrades, they shouldn't be that expensive in the grand scheme of things.QuoteI don't understand why everybody is so adverse to shifting consumption to times of cheaper electricity prices. Some consumers will find it easy to adjust and take advantage of lower prices, while others will be less flexible and pay a premium. This is arguably how it always should have been, it's just that it's not been technically feasible until recently.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 09:58:41 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 amAs to your first point, of course prices will go down, no doubt about that. However, as i also mentioned, without storage it is next to impossible to get 100% renewable. So, even if PV gets to the point that it costs the same as coal, to actually use it in a sensible fashion will make it more expensive again, simply because of the added cost of storage and extra grid capacity required. Plus the inevitable conversion losses that come with storage, which means that a 1:1 comparison is pretty much useless.As to your second point, has anyone ever considered the externalities for PV and wind? For one, those systems don't last as long as conventional power plants do. In case of PV, a rather big chunk of extra electronics is needed, for example the inverters. In case of wind, rare earth magnets are needed for the generators. Getting that material and producing the stuff is not a pretty thing. In case of large wind turbines, they also have to keep moving, which is done by spending energy on them, in times of no wind. While i don't know to what these things sum up, they are definitely there, and i wonder why it is that they are never really mentioned, while the externalities of fossil fuels are mentioned always.Quote from: tjaeger on January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 amOf course incentives do work, that's pretty obvious. What i am complaining about is that it becomes obvious that once you take away those incentives, to have things stand on it's own after a while, it seems to stop working in case of renewables. How else do you explain the drastic drop in newly installed PV capacity in 2013, where such incentives were not taken away completely, but simply reduced? And again, don't you think that after 20+ years of _huge_ incentives this stuff should be able stand on it's own now?Quote from: tjaeger on January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 amAs you said, "at least in the summer". And if the goal is 100% renewable, then fossil fuels are out of the question. Sure, we could keep lots of backup power plants to jump in if needed. But building them and keeping those maintained and ready to fill in would be even more expensive than storage.Quote from: tjaeger on January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 amSee, that is the problem. "I won't fall for that one" basically means that you are unwilling to consider the scales and issues involved. While you are free to choose so, it automatically puts you in a position where you can no longer argue that going 100% (or any other major factor) renewable is doable or feasible. Not caring about who pays is somewhat dishonest. Making assumptions that some upgrades shouldn't be that expensive goes right back to the unwillingness to consider things. After all, the grid updates in question here are far more complex than simply adding a bunch of new transmission lines and distribution station, as would be the case with conventional systems.But let me give you a small glimpse into that issue, so that you get at least an idea. I will give a heavily idealized example that would never work that way due to some factors that i explain afterwards.First, i assume that 20% of the nameplate capacity of renewables actually result in electricity generated. I got to that factor by the numbers given for 2011 inhttps://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/17DF3FA36BF264EBC1257B0A003EE8B8/$file/Energieinfo_EE-und-das-EEG-Januar-2013.pdf, page 20. There the installed capacity for _all_ renewables is given at 64.6 GW, and the amount of electrical energy that resulted from that as 121.3 TWh. Now, according to the nameplate capacity they would produce 64.6*24*365 = 565,896 GWh = roundabout 565.9 TWh per year. So we have 121.3 TWh actually produced out of a nameplate capacity of 565.9 TWh, which makes it roundabout 21%. I rounded that down to 20% for two reasons, one is to get a nice round factor (one fifth), the other is because there are renewables in the numbers given that have little chance of increasing but are almost 100% (like hydroelectric, which can't really grow much more here since there are no more places to put them). If the amount of PV would increase, that 20% figure would go down, if the amount of wind increases, that figure would go up. So this is a pretty good assumption.Next i assume only the baseload demand, but use the maximum of that, which can reach 40 GW. I use the maximum because i completely ignore peak load in my example, to make things simpler. So while it is a maximum number, in the reeal world it would be very insufficient.My next assumption is that we cycle between 8 hours of supply purely from renewables directly, and 8 hours of supply purely from storage. How i came to that number becomes obvious below. Suffice to say that in reality this is again insufficient, since we can indeed have days, and even weeks, with no wind and little sun, for example during winter.i also completely neglect transmission losses, and i make the wrong assumption that the storage can be refilled in the same time that it can be drained. This is, again, completely unrealistic, since we do have transmission losses, and storage refill takes longer than depletion.OK, first the storage. Let's take the biggest pump storage we have in Germany (which is also the biggest in whole Europe), Goldisthal.http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpspeicherwerk_Goldisthal. This is also how i came to the 8/8 cycle: It has a generating capacity of roundabout 1GW and a storage capacity of roundabout 8GWh, so it can run for 8 hours. I chose pump storage because for now they are the most efficient, at up to 80%.Now, to supply the 40GW baseload demand during the 8 hour part of purely renewable directly used, we would need to install 40*5=200GW of capacity, which is a bit over 4 times of what we have now. To supply it from storage, we would need 40 Goldisthal pump storage facilities. But we also need to refill the pump storage during the 8 hours of purely renewable. At a efficiency of 80% for the pump storage, we need an additional 250GW capacity of renewables, making it a total of 450GW, which is almost 8 times of what we have now.The first, very obvious problem with this is that we simply do not have enough suitable sites to build 40 Goldisthal-like facilities. Mind you, Goldisthal is _huge_. Not to mention the impact it had on the environment there, which was a reason why it took so long to build in the first place: lots of protests from environmental protection groups. Go figure! Of course, power-to-gas is all the frenzy talk currently, so we could use that instead. However, with that the overall efficiency drops dramatically. The cycle electricity->gas->electricity is at best 44% efficient. It would require an additional 450GW of renewable capacity to be installed instead of "only" the 250GW. Plus, it needs gas power plants to convert it to electricity, and _huge_ amounts of storage space for all that gas. Compressed at 80 bar, no less.The next obvious problem is that the used 8/8 cycle is simply not going to happen. As mentioned, we can have weeks without wind and very little sun. This means we need a high multiple, likely even an order of magnitude or more, of storage just to get us through these times, but which are otherwise not needed. If we have to depend on storage for a week, we would need 21 times the storage compared to only 8 hours. If we would optimistically assume that 1 week of no wind is followed by 1 week with wind, we would also require 21 times the additional generating capacity from renewables. Before you cry foul play, yes, i know that this is a rare scenario, and that the need for generating capacity will be offset simply by the fact that we will have long periods with lots of wind and sun, like in the summer, that could fill up even more storage sufficiently.Now, this is already getting into the territory of being ridiculously big. But in reality it will be even bigger, since we also have to satisfy peak load demands. Which means even more generating and storage capacity. Then we need to account for transmission losses, which will become considerably high due to all that energy transported back and forth. And last but not least, we will need some extra generating and storage capacity as spare, as we do now with conventional generation, because things can break down and a quick drop-in is needed. Not to mention that for now this is all about electricity only, based on a demand scenario as it is now. But if the goal is 100% renewable _energy_, and not only electricity, this will again go up quite a lot, since we need heat and transportation as well, which would then have to be done wit electricity for the most part.And then there is another pretty obvious issue: where to put all these things? The space needed for storage would be _huge_, and i really mean friggin huge. Wind and solar need plenty of space as well. Plus, manufacturing such a massive amount of storage, PV panels and wind turbines will use up a massive amount of resources.I hope that this gives you at least a small glimpse of the truly massive scales involved here, all the while this example is extremely, unrealistically idealized. In the real world it will be much worse.Quote from: tjaeger on January 22, 2014, 08:09:33 amThe problem is that the majority of people simply can not shift demand around by that much. Do you want to cook your meal at 4 in the night, because electricity is availble and cheaply then? What will your neighbours say if your washing machine starts at 2 in the night? What would you say if you wanted to wash your clothes, but the grid decided this night was not a good night for that, and nothing got washed at all? What will your insurance say if you washing machine starts at 4 in the night, while you sleep, breaks down and floods your appartment? Or if it starts at 12 noon, while you are at work while it breaks?Yes, there are some things that can be easily shifted around by everyone, but those are few. For most people, most things simply can't. Same as with PV. I always cringe when people go around and say "everyone can install PV, it's truly power generation put into the hands of the people". But in reality it isnt. Since most live for rent, in mullti-appartement buildings, they can't install anything on the rooof. Ironically, those who can, and subsequently profit from these extremely high feed-in tarriffs for PV, are the ones who are already better suited financially, since they usually have their own house. True, there are things like "Bürgerparks" and stuff, where folks get together, buy some land and put things there. But then, again, this can be done mostly by peolple who have that money to spare in the first place.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 22, 2014, 10:39:24 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on January 22, 2014, 10:08:38 amIt's not what is happening, but instead what is only slowly starting to happen right now. In my opinion, they should have thought about that at the same time they started the whole EEG mess. After all, was easily forseeable what is needed in terms of grid capacity and extension. For 20+ years they have thrown money at people to have them install generating capacity. They could have thrown less at them, and used part of it for grid & storage.Quote from: mojo-chan on January 22, 2014, 10:08:38 amRoads are mainly paid for by taxes on vehicles, i.e. are mainly paid for by those that actually uuse them. The internet infrastructure is paid for by those who actually use it. If people wnat faster internet, they pay for faster internet and that money subsequently goes into upgrading the internets infrastructure.Your last sentence is a strawman. I never said that nothing should ever be upgraded. But tell me, why should _i_ pay for stuff i don't want? Why should _i_ pay for upgrades that i don't want or need? _That_ is the point. People want renewables? Let them have at it, but at the same time let only them pay for it as well. Heck, i even grant more, i have no problems with paying for some initial incentives or subsidies to get things going. But those have to be limited and reasonable. 20+ years and i still have to pay for stuff i don't want. Not only that, year by year i have to pay more for it. Sorry, but enough is enough.What was the parole quite some years ago? The "Energiewende" would not cost more than one ball of ice cream per month per person? At an average electricity consumption of 2000 kWh per year per single-person household, and roundabout 6 Cents per kWh for the EEG stuff, that makes about 120 Euros per year for the EEG, 10 Euros per month. Quite expensive i ce cream, i must say. Sure, it gets slightly cheaper if more persons live in a household. On avergae it is 1000 extra kWh per year per additinal person. Still quite some mighty fine luxury ice cream.Greetings,Chris