The success of renewable energy in Germany - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Coliban
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 07:59:22 am
content: An unbelievable success storySome years ago German politicians decided to make Germany to one of the countries with the highest rate of „renewables“ and to transform transport to the new transportation method with batteries. They claimed the „Energiewende“ and the „Mobilitätswende“ (Energy Change and Transportations change).To make things short, the success was tremendous. New legal regulations for building houses with energy-saving standards, regulations for renewable energy and transportation, a massiv PR-campaign about the ruin of the climate, NGOs with "worried citizens", it looked like our whole country was transformed to a clean, emission-neutral industry, based on renewable energy. All this was accompanied by a never seen campaign against cars with the central accusation to VW they had manipulated their exchaust system to force them to pay more than 30 billion USD as a "fine" to authorities and states in the USA.The German ministry for economy and energy, the „BMWI“ (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie) presents every month proudly the newest rate of renewable energy: until today, more than 33% of our energy is produces by "renewables, waterpower, gasbiomass, wind, photovoltaics. More than 33% energy generated by clean energy production in one of the highest industrialized countries in the world? Even 33% is a big step to clean energy production, a cleaner environment, less waste and pollution. Politicians and "NGOs" are celebrating and bragging about this unique transformation process. More than 33% is, if someone thinks about this a big achievement to a cleaner, and healthier environment.Really?The realityOf curse, every success story has its critics, envious people which are uncomfortable when they recognize other peoples success. And, of course, even such an undisputed achievement as the "Energiewende" in Germany attracts many critics.But those circles are the minority because public media is concentrating on the success of the political initiated rescue of our climate. About 16% of the renewable energy comes from wind power. And to accomplish such an high rate, you have to produce efficient energy. Efficiency is achieved by bigger and economic generators and therefore the wind turbines became bigger and bigger, up to an gigantic size: 200 Meter high with an area of their blades, spanning an area of two soccer fields. Which is seen from miles and kilometers away. And which are producing drop shadows as big as trains. And if you are in this drop shadows it is like a flashlight in a dark disco. Only bigger. And if you live in that area, you are getting mad or ill or both. (Not to mention the infrasound which is felled (not heard) up to 3 kilometers distance). So, citizens initiatives sprout all over the country which tried to save their environment and living space and states (in federal Germany there are 16 states) established laws that forbid such wind-power monsters until a distance of 5 kilometers from villages. That stopped the forest of wind power stations. For some time.To discuss the pro and contras, we have to consider the positive effects of activities and they are undoubtable and undiscussed: more than 33% renewables. (1)Really?Renewable EnergyLet’s have a closer look how we achieved this high rate of renewable energy. But first let’s discuss phrases which are indisputable: "renewable".The mythos of never ending sourcesIn Germany there are several tales of resources which are renewable and, like the perpetuum mobile, it is a nice and attracting idea: something which renews itself without any power or material, alone from the fact that its exists: in "Tischlein deck Dich", there is a table which produces the best and tasty food you can imagine if you say "Tischlein deck Dich" ("Table set yourself"). Or the Tale "Töpfchen koch" in which a pot is producing porridge every-time you say "Töpfchen koch".Everything you can harvest without investing more than you are getting is a good thing and a potential source of infinite wealthiness, in Germany such circumstances are called "Schlaraffenland" where milk and honey is floating in the rivers and fried pigeons and gooses are flying directly in your mouth while you are lying under an apple tree. (2)The synonym "renewable" which is used from our energy department shall remind us that those wind mills and photovoltaic systems are inexhaustible sources of energy and wealthiness in which we can settle down in the near future and can permanently harvest energy without further efforts.We could be happy altogether with our "Energiewende". If there wouldn’t be a drawback, funnily enough like in our tales "Tischlein deck Dich" or "Töpfchen koch" (which ended in an disaster)...We have one of the highest percentages of "renewables" in the world. And we have the highest prices for electricity in the world. How could that be??The highest energy prices in the world and one of the highest rate of "renewables"If you want to get clarity about this paradox, you should investigate if one of the claims are really true: if we would have real "renewables", then our energy prices should have been, maybe not for free, but a lot cheaper than the highest energy price on the whole earth (to weaken this comical fact, climate-activists like our ministry for environment and friends take small and unindustrialized countries like Barbados or Bermudas into account to prove the critics "wrong" wo say that we have the highest energy prices on the earth).Why is that so?If someone thinks this fact is worse, it is getting even worser, because the ministry of energy, the politicians, the media and "NGOs", are trying to disguise another fact:we have not only the highest energy prices in the worldwe pay an gigantic amount of subsidies to guarantee more than 33% of "renewable" energyevery household, even the poorest, are forced to contribute to the owner of "renewable" power generationThose subsidies are well hidden although every german citizen know about it: it is called "EEG-Umlage". EVERY household here in Germany has to pay about one fourth of our electric bill to finance the "Energiewende".Every household. And with that money, we can achieve a rate of more than 33% of "renewable" energy.Wait a moment....Spend more money into a system then you get out of it is called "renewable"?We have only renewables which are only functioning if every household in Germany is forced to pay one fourth of our bill to "help" the renewables to be "renewable"How much is it? Since I always have my problems with american, british and german currencies, i will give the raw number of €, we in Germany are paying EVERY year for that the "renewables" can produce energy: more than 30.000.000.000€. Some say, it is 24.000.000.000€, other say it is 33.000.000.000€. The fact is, that it is a monstrous and gigantic sum we are paying for the subsidies without the climate-industry could not produce "renewable" energy.We are financing water power, wind power, photovoltaic power, biogas, etc., etc., with that gigantic sum. And, from this point of view, the so called "renewables" are many things but one: renewable. Because we are investing MORE money into that system than we get out of it. And that is the reason why our electricity has the highest price in the world (except for Bermuda....).If it is not renewable, is it, at least, environmentally friendly?We can make the calculation together: if, through any circumstance, you find, or win, or inherit from a rich uncle, 33.000.000.000€, every year, you could spend it to produce the cleanest energy in the world, if that is your goal. An be happy that, if you have not the cheapest, at least you have the cleanest power generation.Ok, that would also be fine. If that would be our objective.But is that, at least, true?I asked a friend who runs a small, energy intensive company with about 6 employees: she is paying about one fourth of the electricity consumption of the company which adds to about 4000€ "EEG-Umlage" a year. And we have hundred thousands of companies in this land. I asked her, how she is financing the "EEG-Umlage", is she winning the 4000€ in lottery, does someone give it to her as a gift or how she gets the 4000€ on top of taxes, resources, energy, she is paying every year.She says, to earn 4000€ ON TOP of her income, she has to produce or work, roughly 5 or 10 times more to get 4000€ of profit. Lets calculate it roughly with lower figures: she has to make 5 to 10 time MORE sales, about 20-40.000€ to get the 4000€ profit which she needs to finance the "EEG-Umlage" subsidiaries.Of course: a profit is not a profit which you get in the lottery, you have to WORK for it, you have to PRODUCE something which you can sell, you have to make a business, a turn over, a sales volume, a transaction, you have to GENERATE this profit.An HOW do you generate this profit? As she is PRODUCING goods, as she is using resources, as she is wasting energy to get the 4000€ profit she needs to finance the subsidiaries for the "renewable" energy. Let’s say, if she has to make more sales, we can say roughly that one half or 1/3 of the goods she is producing is the waste of energy or raw resources. That is, if she HAS to generate sales for about 20-40.000€ to get the 4000€ profit she needs for financing the 4000€ tax for renewables, we can say that about 10.000-20.000€ is wasted raw material, water, electricity, oil, etc. or energy to get the money for the renewable energy tax.Roughly, you need about 3-5 times more energy to produce the profit for the tax for "renewable" energyLets look to it in a the bigger case of our country: if you would get 30.000.000.000€ EVERY year to finance the renewable energy you have to consume 3-5 times MORE energy to GENERATE the profit you need to finance the subsidiaries for the renewable energy.Despite the fact that EVERY household in Germany is financing the climate-industry (which would not produce a fractal of the energy if they wouldn’t getting our subsidiaries), pensioner, old aged people, every person in a rest home, every household is financing the climate-industry because without the subsidiaries, the climate-industries, the carrier, the licensees, the owner of the wind-parks (i know it because i know some of those people), would and could produce no "renewable" energy: this is a gigantic transfer of money from many people to a few people who are getting very wealthy. Despite the fact that EVERY household is financing the climate industry, we have to take into account that we waste 3-5 times MORE resources to generate "renewable" energy in contrast to the energy we GET from the "renewables".That means that wer are wasting the equivalent of about 90.000.000.000€ to 150.000.000.000€ resources to gain the money for the 30.000.000.000€ we need for the subsidiaries.If you would be an extrem environmentalist, would you waste 3-5 times more energy and resources than necessary?We have the paradox situation that a person who really cares about the environment would strongly oppose the bizarr idea to wast 3-5 times more energy to "generate" only a fractal of the before wasted resources as "clean" energy.Everybody who want to financed "renewables" threw subsidiaries is making the opposite of what was intendedThere is nothing wrong with "renewables" if the costs of getting "clean" energy are lower than the amount of resources you have to invest to produce "renewables". But that is, at least in the majority of wind mills and "renewable" power plants, not the case.In Germany the situation is that we all try to protect out environment because we love nature. But for the sake of economy, wind mills and power plants are getting bigger and bigger: they are 200 meters high, consists of 7000 tons of steel and concrete, are fastened deep in the ground and for collecting the energy you have to dig up the earth for thousands of kilometers to bury thousands of kilometers plastic and metal into the ground. On top of that everywhere new energy transformations stations are builded, wasting land to collect the distributed electricity all over the country.A demolition of our nature and landscapeAres in Germany where people in the past went to make holiday and relax are now destroyed by thousands and thousands of gigantic windmills, you cant see the horizon anymore. The coasts are full of monster mills and when you try to look to the horizon you see a moving, rotating and turbulent landscape which makes you dizzy. Those areas are interesting only for a few owners of wind mill companies and the climate-industry, everybody who can afford is leaving this once rural areas. Quiet and calm areas and landscapes are now looking like the interiour of a machine factory, cables scattered all around between thousands of thousands of windmills. Which would not be there if we wouldn’t be forced to pay for that climate-party.One modern windmill is destroying several square kilometers of landBecause nobody wants and can live under or near windmills and because the infrasound is making sick (up to a distance of 3 kilometers), and because of the disturbed periphery, everybody who can is escaping those areas which leads to a price decline of real estates and houses. This leads to the situation that in those areas which had an intact and rural infrastructure, everybody who can afford it is leaving and people from the lower social classes, people with low income, refugees, etc. are entering those areas.Well intended is not always well doneTo come to a conclusion about our situation in Germany where we have tried to build the cleanest and highest rates of renewable power generation:We have the highest energy prices on earthIn ADDITION to the highest electricity prices on earth we have to spend a gigantic amount of money to help the renewable power plants to produce electricityWe have a tremendous demolition of our nature and environmentEvery year we have to spend more money for the abstract idea of clean and "renewable" power generationOnly a strong industry has the power and can afford to waste a lot of money and resources to get a fractal energy back* Addendum** 1 BMWihttps://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/erneuerbare-energien.html** 2 Schlaraffenlandhttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlaraffenland#/media/Datei:Schlaraffenland.jpg** Some figures of the real subsidarieshttps://www.netztransparenz.de/portals/1/2019-10-15%20Veröffentlichung%20EEG-Umlage%202020.pdf

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 02:23:03 am
content: Very well stated.I think California has a higher rate for electricity than Germany. On peaker days we pay $0.94 kWhr. On non-peaker days in the summer, the regular peak rate is $0.54 kWhr.When Germany needs electricity don't they buy nuclear produced electricity for France?Nuclear power is the only really the best solution we have. Once we figure out nuclearfissionfusion we will have it made. Time to spend more money on ITER and NIF.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 03:38:09 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 02, 2020, 02:23:03 amI think you mean fusion. Fision was figured out in the 40's.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 04:14:35 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on September 02, 2020, 03:38:09 pmMy bad, thank you for correcting me.Interestingly NuPower sniffs Terra power have both in the past week announced success with small fission reactors. They are saying these new type of reactors could providing us with power in less than a decade. (If I got my facts straight.

author: richard.cs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 05:29:29 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 02, 2020, 02:23:03 amSure, fusion would be great, but fission works now and we should be building a mix of fission and renewable now to allow earlier closure of fossil fuel plants, as well as to mitigate imminent end-of-life for many existing nuclear plants. Ideally these would be modern breeder reactors that can produce high fuel burn-up ratios, which enormously reduces the high level waste problem by both reducing the total mass of fuel used (and therefore waste to be dealt with) and also by conversion of fission products to shorter half life isotopes. In practice though those designs aren't at the same level of readiness as existing designs, so it would be more optimal to build something like EPRs and then consume their waste later on in breeder designs.

author: The Soulman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 05:43:56 pm
content: Coliban, you need to have a talk with your friend.Tell her that if she cut back the hours of one employee by 10 percent she saves the 4K a year and the remaining staff only have to produce 20 percent of the work they would otherwise had to do.Not even taking the energy savings into account.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 06:21:58 pm
content: Well, I'm the last person on earth to defend the energy policy of our government, but the reality is not quite as dystopian as described above. Of course, the whole energy change thing is extremely expensive and about half of the things done/planned are either questionable or pretty much insane, but this could be said for about anything a typical German government does. Google "Berlin Brandenburg Airport".Admittedly, our politicians aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer and tend to burn our money by doing things for the sake of doing things but least our country is not led by a narcissistic orange guy or by a some evil/corrupt/power-mad clique like a majority of countries in the world.Icanunderstand though that someone living directly in the shadow of a wind turbine is somewhat pissed about that, but honestly I couldn't name a single one in my vicinity. Actually, most of them are located in the northern federal states or at the coast, so yeah, it's not really bothering me to be frank. There are other things about these plans that bother me more like our inability to build the high-voltage transmission lines from the north to the middle and south (since everybody seems to like renewable energy but nobody wants a transmission line in his/her neighborhood) or the "hydrogen strategy" or the public perception that in a few years only battery electric vehicles will be used (but then again, nobody really wants to buy one other than maybe some rich folks want to appease their conscience by buying it as third car next to the Porsche Cayenne and the Audi Q3).And regarding energy prices: to be fair, about anything here is more expensive than anywhere else in the world. Or at least we're aiming for a well-deserved 2nd place or at minimum something in the top five.I would bet that our energy prices were already more or less the highest in the world before the whole energy change thing.[EDIT: fixed typos]

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 07:10:42 pm
content: Well, you don't need to invade other countries to keep the fuel price low... or in other words you get more independent of political issues.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 07:10:49 pm
content: I thought Germans were environmentally friend if not the people who cared about the environment the most in Europe. Aren’t Germans “big” into nature, hikes in the forest and recycling. Weren’t you the first country to have recycling programs? I would think Germans would the first ones to embrace EVs. From your post it seems like German’s are selectively environmentally friendly. What’s with that?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 07:14:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 02, 2020, 07:10:49 pmAs with most environmental actions these days, its all about feeling good while the world burns.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 08:34:37 pm
content: Quote from: Coliban on August 27, 2020, 07:59:22 amEmployees work 40 hours regardless ... they'd take more money home without renewable, which they'd spend on other types of consumption.So the question is whether the government forced choice of what to consume (expensive renewable power) is more environmentally friendly than free choice consumption ... and obviously it is.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2020, 10:01:53 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 02, 2020, 07:10:49 pmPeople tend to favor something and still do the opposite. Everybody tells you that good food is important and watches cooking shows but then they still buy frozen pizza. Many people here think that BEVs are totally environmentally friendly (which by itself is questionable of course as long as we also burn our share of brown coal or diesel generators are used to power Tesla superchargers in the backcountry) but then they buy a car that is cheaper and/or more convenient. Also note that Germany is a country with very low property ownership even in Europe. So even if someone could live with the limited range of a BEV, it's simply impractical if you can't charge it at home. What is true though is that we are probably world champions regarding garbage separation. Problem is that it's a long known fact that most of this is then burned together anyway since recycling is still much too expensive. Doesn't stop us though from separating that garbage diligently. We're Germans after all.

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 12:24:07 am
content: I hope that works. That would be great

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 01:12:15 am
content: I have been hearing about small, safe, cost-effective nuclear, in many incarnations, for going on a few decades now. It seems like it is always about 10 years away, just like fusion is always 20 years away. I guess that makes it 10 years closer. I have a good friend, an actual nuclear physicist, who has worked on small reactors (including ones that work and are in actual use), who worked on this subject. Most of these companies do not have a known viable path to commercialization, and run on hope, government grants (that pesky government again!), and marketing with lots of beautiful 3D FEM graphics that look scientific. I would love to see this succeed, but I'm not holding my breath.It would be more informative to compare subsides for fossil fuels (direct and indirect), as well as the health care costs associated with them, as a fair comparison to the bad effects of wind turbines. Oh, don't forget about solar.Many cultures have a "something-for-nothing" vein in the culture. But, people who actually work in this field do a lot of work on life-cycle cost and/or levelized cost of energy, not "something for nothing". I don't see any discussion of this. In fact, it's often used as a argument against renewables, and when that happens, you should also look for the same thing on fossil fuels. If they don't include references on that, there is usually a reason.Finally, I like to be able to somewhat trust the air I breath. It's actually worth money to me, and lung diseases are really expensive, too. And, on a selfish note, the renewables business employs a lot more electrical engineers than the fossil fuel business.John

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 01:36:51 am
content: @ahbushnell Take a look at the announcements from Terra Power (Bill Gates funded) and Nuscale. Both made announcements in the last week. (Not sure of the details.) But that 10 years off is now just a few. Both companies had announcements.The other technology/company to watch is liquid metal batteries. Dr. Sadoway from MIT said a few years ago they are very close in having something ready for market.If this stuff were easy it would have been discovered long ago. You have to appreciate all of the work these people are doing.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 02:16:19 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 03, 2020, 01:51:00 amNot the story in California. So many people have installed solar we have too much during the day. We need the electricity late in the day early evening when solar no longer produces. We need nuclear or something that can reliable produce electricity like nuclear. Wind is unreliable and with hydro we have are having water shortages.Nuclear is the only technology that makes sense.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 04:56:04 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 02:16:19 amIn other words, smart automation that focuses on turning things *on* during peak production will go a long ways towards solving the problem, and be better accepted than the current way of automation that focuses on turning things off. Water heaters and dedicated freezers would be two examples of loads that can be greatly automated in that manner without the user being too aware it's going on. HVAC can also be automated in that manner, but to a lesser extent. Adding thermal storage would be cheap (compared to batteries) and allow HVAC loads to be optimized even more. There's one problem that has to be solved to make it work - create incentives to do it and an open standard for those automation devices!

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 09:31:13 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 03, 2020, 04:56:04 amNot following your logic at all. Water heaters in California are for the most part gas. Our electricity prices are much to high to heat water with electricity. Most people here do not gave a dedicated freezer. And not sure how powering off a dedicated freezer would conserve much for the few people who have them.Air conditioners, pool pumps, and electric stoves/ovens is what consumes the electricity. Are you saying we should power those should be made smart? Not sure how one can prepare dinner with a smart oven or stove. Can you explain that one?And how exactly does a smart air conditioner work? Are you going to power that off when it’s needed? And power it on when no one is at home when it’s not needed?Please explanation how what you are saying is practical? I’m certainly not seeing it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 01:07:39 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 09:31:13 amTurn it *on* during peak production so that it runs less once production drops off. Every grocery store has dedicated freezers, and those can be set colder than they normally operate at in order to make use of solar power. To a lesser extent, that's also possible to do with air conditioning. In the long term, ice storage will greatly expand the capability to run air conditioning more when there's higher solar production.The pool pumps can simply be run more when there's surplus power available and run little at other times.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 01:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 02:16:19 amAs long as it's not your money to gamble on it being the thing to make sense for 4 decades. A breakthrough in storage or even the continued negative energy prices starting to make green hydrogen an option regardless of lousy round trip efficiency could easily whipe you out.No one is going to build significant nuclear capacity without decades long guaranteed demand contracts.

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 02:16:59 pm
content: I know about announcements. They are cheap and easy, and marketing teams make announcements specifically to keep companies in the public eye, and more importantly, in the eye of potential investors. There is no requirement that there is anything of import behind them. Theremightbe something, but there isno requirement. If you have a good marketing team, there is a lot of strategy behind announcements.If an announcement is of the groundbreaking of a small nuclear power plant factory, or of getting past a major regulatory hurdle, perhaps a pilot production facility, or something like that, I will give it a chance of making a difference. Is that what they are announcing, or is it another "breakthough" that will enable blah blah blah...?Don't get me wrong. I think this kind of work is incredibly important. Much of my career has intersected with this, and still does. So I am extremely skeptical when I see clean energy breakthrough announcements, since I have been following them for decades and the vast majority don't go anywhere. However, I am also skeptical when I see some "expert" on the internet who collects other sources on the internet to undermine solar and wind with a tiny subset of selected facts.The fact that wind and solar are reaching the level that we need to worry about energy storage and management is a sign that they have been successful. Don't forget, at one time the internal combustion engine were "clean solutions" and "limitless" compared to horses, but there was plenty of resistance and fearmongering about them, as well as technical surprises and setbacks that occurred as they became more mainstream. The same was true when dangerous, unreliable electricity was making inroads on safe, reliable gas and kerosene lamps.John

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 02:23:29 pm
content: Here is an example of an technological solution from >100 years ago, which looks dangerous and crazy to me:https://www.antiquelampsupply.com/gas_electric_lamp_partsJohn

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 03:52:37 pm
content: Quote from: JohnG on September 03, 2020, 02:23:29 pmJohn these fixtures are still in homes in San Francisco. While the gas lighting is not used today, the gas lines are still attached and live. I have a friend who was installing a new light fixture. As he was removing the old he started hearing a hissing noise. Those weren't electrons leaking out, it was gas. When those fixtures came out doctors were saying electric lights are harmful to one's vision. Electric lights should only be used to lighting. For tasks such as sewing and reading to only gas lighting should be used. Use an electric light for reading or sewing and you will go blind.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 04:03:58 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 03, 2020, 01:07:39 pmI guess this is something you are thinking about in theory, but don't have a clue about on the practical side. Pool pumps are part of the heating system for pools. If they are run during times of surplus power they will cool the pool. There are few places in California where pools need to be cooled.Please explain this ice storage concept. I know my grandparents had an ice box and my grand father would have to lug a 50 pound block of ice up three flights of stairs. Then after the ice melted there was 50 pounds of water that had to be disposed of. I don't know of any grocery store that's using ice for keeping things cool today. They use electricity. There must be a reason business aren't doing what you say. Could it be it's impractical and doesn't work?

author: ahbushnell
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 04:35:46 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 03, 2020, 01:07:39 pmYou didn't answer the question. Ok pull pumps could be turned off. My PHEV is on a timer so it shuts of during peak demand. But the big problem is HVAC. When it's 104 outside (40C) then I'm not going to turn off the AC. We do turn up the thermostat which helps.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 05:24:48 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on September 03, 2020, 04:35:46 pmUsing the posters logic he's proposed for stores, he saying turn down the thermostat to say 50 (10c) and get a big block of ice. He's saying that's what YOU should be doing. I have to wonder what the poster does.

author: SparkyFX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 05:44:55 pm
content: Washing machines, dryers could be on a timer as well (some actually offer such a feature). There are loads that could offer an input for going standby or start when it is practical to do so.Utilities could even remote control that (similar to street light control) to balance supply and demand. Would offer some advantages over simple buffering.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 05:57:15 pm
content: Quote from: SparkyFX on September 03, 2020, 05:44:55 pmThat was the idea in California when we were all given Smart meters. We own several smart appliances and have appliances with delayed start feature. It sounds great, but then there's the "real" world application. In reality it doesn't even come close to working as good as it sounds.After looking at all of the options, nuclear IS the solution. All the other technologies are just stop gap measures.

author: DenzilPenberthy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 05:59:35 pm
content: Quote from: ahbushnell on September 03, 2020, 04:35:46 pmIf only there was some way that AC demand and PV production were correlated.... .... .... If only... ...

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 06:04:21 pm
content: Ice thermal energy storage:The basic concept is to use a modified HVAC system to freeze water at night, when electricity demand and costs are low, and the ambient temperature is lower. Then, during the day, you melt the ice to supplement the AC system and reduce peak energy requirements. Here is a high-level view:https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f71/bto-IceStorageWebinar-011620.pdf.Small nukes:Speaking of announcements, I did see one today from NuPower, that was referred to already. They have received regulatory approval and announced a test build of twelve 60MW reactors. The first is to be complete in 2029, with the remaining eleven in 2030. So, in 9 years, if all goes well, the testing will be underway on 720 MW worth of small reactors. This is good news.Perspective:Approximate 3600 MW of solar photovoltaic capacity was installed in the US in the firstquarterof 2020, according tohttps://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight. Approximately 3000 MW of large-scale battery storage is planned to be installed from 2021 through 2023 in the US, according tohttps://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/pdf/battery_storage.pdf. Yes, this is power capacity and not energy capacity. The report goes into more detail if you are interested. Note that short-duration power capacity can still greatly extend the reach of renewables, and can reduce the need for expensive infrastructure improvements, i.e. new transmission lines in traditional fossil-fuel power.John

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 10:20:26 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 04:03:58 pmSince when do you need to heat a pool when it's triple digits outside?QuoteIt is indeed silly to transport the ice, so don't do that. Regenerate the ice in place.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2020, 11:04:33 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 03, 2020, 10:20:26 pmYou don't own a pool or must not know much about pools. The purpose of running the pool pump during the day even when it's triple digits outside is to get that heat energy into the pool water. This also has the added benefit of keeping the house cooler.QuoteIt is indeed silly to transport the ice, so don't do that. Regenerate the ice in place.I think this video demonstrates and the PPT slide presentation you linked to demonstrates just how poorly this concept works and the problems it has. Only a dozen building in Manhattan are using this? Why so few?But here's the real kicker why is it when they Word Trade Center was rebuilt they used air conditioners, and NOT the technology you and the kid and the video are talking about? Any idea why one the worlds largest and highly energy efficient buildings isn't using the technology?How many residential homes have this technology in the US?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 12:00:42 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 09:31:13 amThat's partly because the hot water is used in plumbing systems which require 65+ degree hot water to prevent legionnaire's disease. Alternatives are theoretically possible, for instance you could have the condenser at the shower. COP for heating to 37 degrees is much better than 65 with a heat pump.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 12:06:18 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 03, 2020, 11:04:33 pmI assume you mean heated by solar thermal, which peaks at the same time solar PV does its peak production. And how much power does it really take to move the water? I presume that with some optimization, not much.QuoteHow many are in a position to get a cost savings using that technology? For a long time, not many. And that lack of financial incentive means little reason to build it.How many houses with solar have you seen in the 90s? How many do you see now? Just because it wasn't done much in the past doesn't mean we can't do it now.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 12:42:43 am
content: Quote from: DenzilPenberthy on September 03, 2020, 05:59:35 pmYeah, it's a kicker isn't it. You could spend all day staring off into the far distance and never manage to figure it out...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 01:30:23 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 04, 2020, 12:06:18 amNo disrespect meant by the following comment, but you most certainly know nothing about pools do you. How much power does it take to move the water? A lot. As much if not more than what one spends on air conditioning. We don't have air conditioning but we minimally power our pool and it's over half of our montly electric bill. People with a larger backyard pool can might be spending $200-$300 to move the water. Just do the math. One gallon of water weights just 8 1/3 pounds. A small pool is 20,000 gallons. Every day your moving 166,000 pounds of water up 15 feet to the roof. Most folks have a 1.5 HP motor (1125 watts) running 4 -6 hrs per day. Plus a booster pump consuming another 562.5 watts for 1-2 hrs. You can do the rest of the math. But to say it's minimal just indicated to me (no offence) that you just don't have a clue.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 02:15:30 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 01:30:23 amOffset by the energy recovered from the water coming back down (usually as a result of a partial vacuum in the top of the collector), leaving just friction losses. Make the pipes bigger to keep the losses low. And since the thermal collectors work the best during peak sun, also the time when solar PV performs the best, it doesn't even factor into energy storage. You'll have to add more solar PV to run the pumps, but not more energy storage because the pumps run the most when the PV is generating the most.Also, the need to heat the pool will be much less when it's triple digits out as opposed to when it's a mere 75F out. Therefore, it runs less when air conditioning runs more.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 02:41:02 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 01:30:23 amNo, a gallon of water weighs 10 lbs. I think you're confusing a gallon with the US mini-gallon.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 03:58:11 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 04, 2020, 02:15:30 amAgain you clearly don't know what you are talking about when it comes to pools.There is a vacuum break to prevent the solar thermal tubes from collapsing.Increasing the diameter of the pipe is crazy. You would have to buy adapters and couplings which would dramatically increase the cost. All pool equipment for backyard pools is standardized. You would be a fool adapt everything to a larger diameter pipe.Jeez man.... Do you know anything about physics or thermodynamics? Just because the temp is in the triple digits today doesn't mean the water is. Temp yesterday may have been in the 60s like it is now and has been for the past several days. Any idea how many BTUs it take to heat 20,000 gallons of water? Or how quickly that heat is lost overnight? It takes days of triple degree temps to heat the pool provided the pumps can be run. But then aren't you the one who is telling me NOT to run the pumps and to run them at some other time? Lot a good that's going to do.I added 6 more panels to my solar array just to cover the energy consumed by the pool pumps. That's over a quarter of the my solar system. Before you jump in and say something silly, the pool pumps aren't run much in the winter. So I get to bank all of that over produced electricity with the power company for summer use.All of your ideas are nice in theory, but in real life they don't work. It's like a shovel with a rope handle. Sounds great. Easy to carry. If you step on it, you will not get hit in the head. But try digging with it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 05:09:22 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 03:58:11 amA few dollars for some PVC fittings? Not much of an added cost. The larger pipe will add more cost, the question is if the reduced frictional losses are worth the cost. The energy in raising the water can be recovered using a turbine, a few bits of plastic to make the turbine out of shouldn't cost much. Mechanically couple it to the pump so it assists the motor to keep it going once flow is established. Or simply design the collectors to withstand a vacuum. What ends up the most economical is the winner.QuoteI have never seen a triple digit day right after a 60F day - it's usually in the mid to high 90s the days before. But the point still stands that when it's 100F outside, there's less heating needed than if it's 75F outside.If the original problem is the shortfall in production as the sun goes down, the solar thermal will also be affected. Thus the need to run the pumps also goes down. But what percentage of houses have pools? Is it even that big a problem in the first place?QuoteThat might indeed be the most economical solution to the problem.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 09:13:12 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 04, 2020, 05:09:22 amYou might have some good ideas, but one has to ask why out of the millions of home owners who have pools they are not doing what you suggest. Maybe you have a multi-mullion dollar business with all your ideas. Again I’m no expert, but I think your ideas make as much sense as a shovel with a rope handle. Pools here are very common. Somewhere between a third and half of the houses here have pools.What do you mean you have never seen a triple digit day after a 60 degree day. We haven them every summer. Right now it’s in the 50s and we have a heat wave, triple digit temperatures forecast again.You might have some good ideas, but nobody seems to be doing anything you’ve suggested. One has to ask why?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 12:43:49 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 09:13:12 amThose kinds of triple digit days are easy to prepare for when there's a source of free cooling the day before - open the windows to precool the place and close them when temperatures rise. Might be able to not run the A/C at all if insulation is decent, or at least greatly reduce it. But in my experience, the coolest day I have experienced the day before a triple digit day was still in the 80s.All in all, perhaps adding more solar PV is more economical than trying to save on pump power. The cost of the panels is starting to approach the cost of the raw materials, so I don't think prices are going to keep dropping at the rate we've seen the last decade. Or perhaps the most economical solution would be to add more solar thermal in order to be able to reduce the flow rate. Would like to see an analysis if there are any optimizations you can do to the typical pool that save more energy than spending the same extra cost on more solar PV.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 04:17:40 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 03:58:11 amGiven the prices of evacuated solar thermal tubes I have a hard time seeing how this is economical compared to flat plate collectors or PV+heatpump ... even if it is economical, if it's a big market why the hell don't they add a mm or so the the metal tube so it doesn't get destroyed by less than a Bar of pressure? That's just silly.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 04:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 04, 2020, 12:43:49 pmSorry, but once again your suggestions are silly. We don’t have AC. Leaving the doors open allows insects in and only keeps the house cool until 10 or 11 in the morning. Our house is insulated. Running the pool pump keeps the house a bit cooler as the water pumped to the roof to heat the pool cools the roof.Again in theory you have good ideas which are as practical as a shovel with a rope handle.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 04:34:53 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 04, 2020, 04:17:40 pmApplication is different. One would not use thermal tubes to heat pool water. With pool water you want to increase the temp a fraction or a degree at time. Not increase the temperature of 50 gallons 60 degrees at a time.People who have PV solar and pool solar thermal cover more of their roof with pool solar thermal panels than PV solar. Most people in California heat domestic hot water with gas. To heat a pool with gas is about $200 - $300 per month.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 04:59:34 pm
content: Seems we had a roof solar installation fire yesterday.https://images.app.goo.gl/HP5bA7YwM8aN3jT78

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 05:02:15 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 04:34:53 pmStill doesn't explain how the tubes can't take the half bar worth of pressure from getting to the roof and back.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 05:44:24 pm
content: I remember about 20 years ago every engineer or scientist i knew would confirm that never ever renewable energy could possibly contribute more than 5 % of total consumption. Nowadays the peaks are above 100 % so all large plants need remote control to limit their output. And Germany is yet selling energy to other countries. Photovoltaic energy became something cheap and abundant, especially after China took over production of the panels.We built two power plants eight years ago and they are working as expected. We are in southern Germany and climate change seems to help. Something like growing potatoes - on the roof. Very little work, no water consumption and essentially it's like a bank account: You get back what you put before, plus the idea you are doing the right thing. I was very interested in the LG battery storage systems mentioned in another thread. Hope one day in the future i can stop monthly payments to the electricity company. Some/few people in our neighborhood already bought a Tesla car.Regards, Dieter

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 05:52:37 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on September 04, 2020, 05:44:24 pmEhh, us poor fags will just claw any money saved back in taxes :pGrid independence is a luxury few can afford, we just don't have the land necessary for the overprovisioning nor a super-insulated house.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 08:16:35 pm
content: To be honest, instead of the photovoltaic power plants we could have bought a very nice new car, maybe even a Tesla. If we had done that, the money were lost by now, as well as the monthly income from selling electricity. So for the time being we stay with two small, old cars. Both of them have enough space for our dog, which a Tesla won't have.Regards, Dieter

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 10:07:51 pm
content: Just to summarize: Your problem is that you need to pay 1/4th of the electricity bill to finance 1/3rd of your energy consumption.1/4<1/3And the alternative is this:That is Tagebau Hambach. Would you like to live there?"Begun in 1978, the mine's operation area currently (as of end of 2017) has a size of 43,8 km², with the total area designated for mining having a size of 85 km². It is the deepest open pit mine with respect to sea level: the bottom of the pit with up to 500 metres (1,640 ft) from the surface is 299 metres (981 ft) below sea level, the deepest artificially made point in North Rhine–Westphalia."Yes, there were subsidies for solar panels. An industry had to be kick started. And it costs money. And now it is on it's own feet and it works without subsidies.Instead of crying about the electricity price, place a solar panel on your roof. With the ROI of 6-7 years, it could be the best investment you ever make in your life (excluding being lucky with slot machine of the stock market)

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2020, 11:41:11 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on September 04, 2020, 04:22:18 pmYour house doesn't have windows (not doors) with window screens?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2020, 12:14:04 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 04, 2020, 11:41:11 pmNope, no screens on the Windows or the doors.