Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
This could actually work to the utilities advantage if they embraced the idea. Prices are higher because demand is higher. With the right pricing structure, such arbitraging could prevent the construction of generating facilities to meet peak demand. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: It's actually interesting, but PV batteries are getting so good some utilities are disallowing systems which feedback energy into the grid via these batteries because homeowners are actually arbitraging. They're actually charging their batteries off the grid and then selling back into it when prices are higher. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. Because the sun goes away at night. It can meet a large fraction of our needs, especially in places such as Nevada, where peak demand occurs when the sun is brightest and air conditioning is needed. Solar water heating is a neglected resource. It should be more common in Florida and the Southwest. It is very common in Japan. I think it is common in Australia these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I think the folks of Shanghai might disagree with that one. Why Shanghai? What's the news from Shanghai? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Here is a graph of U.S. PV solar installations per quarter since 2010. It shows rapid growth: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/more-records-for-quarterly-us-solar-installations It shows 930 MW in the July-September quarter. That means 930 MW peak output from the solar cells, not 930 MW of 24-hour baseline capacity. 930 MW baseline would be the output from an average U.S. nuclear plant. I do not know the capacity factor for solar. For wind it is roughly 30% of nameplate capacity. The peak of PV solar output matches peak demand in many places, unlike wind which tends to peak at night. Here is a recent graph of wind turbine output versus total power consumption in Denmark: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/12/postcard-from-the-future-122-wind-power-in-denmark You can see that wind is quite intermittent even on the scale of the entire landmass of Denmark. The good news is, with today's weather forecasting you can predict approximately how much power turbines over a large area will produce for the next few days, so you can schedule other dispatchable energy sources. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
To get kWH/day from peak kW in PV, you multiply by the average full power equivalent hours per day. In FL, this is 4 hours (mostly due to clouds). In NM the number is 5. In the continental US as a whole, the number is probably about 3.5-4. This is for a fixed (not tracking) array. This number is available on the web (I don't remember where) for anywhere in the US. I have a 5.3 kW peak fixed PV system that provides most of the power for my house. For 6 months of the year, my electric consumption from the grid is 0 kWH or less (sometimes I have a net outflow to the grid which gets banked). FL has net metering and my system is grid-tie with no batteries. It works great. Best S. FL months are April or May. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a graph of U.S. PV solar installations per quarter since 2010. It shows rapid growth: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/more-records-for-quarterly-us-solar-installations It shows 930 MW in the July-September quarter. That means 930 MW peak output from the solar cells, not 930 MW of 24-hour baseline capacity. 930 MW baseline would be the output from an average U.S. nuclear plant. I do not know the capacity factor for solar. For wind it is roughly 30% of nameplate capacity. The peak of PV solar output matches peak demand in many places, unlike wind which tends to peak at night. Here is a recent graph of wind turbine output versus total power consumption in Denmark: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/12/postcard-from-the-future-122-wind-power-in-denmark You can see that wind is quite intermittent even on the scale of the entire landmass of Denmark. The good news is, with today's weather forecasting you can predict approximately how much power turbines over a large area will produce for the next few days, so you can schedule other dispatchable energy sources. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I have a 5.3 kW peak fixed PV system that provides most of the power for my house. Wow! How many square feet is that? How much did it cost? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/SunHoursUSMap.html I'm in Zone 6. :( On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: To get kWH/day from peak kW in PV, you multiply by the average full power equivalent hours per day. In FL, this is 4 hours (mostly due to clouds). In NM the number is 5. In the continental US as a whole, the number is probably about 3.5-4. This is for a fixed (not tracking) array. This number is available on the web (I don't remember where) for anywhere in the US. I have a 5.3 kW peak fixed PV system that provides most of the power for my house. For 6 months of the year, my electric consumption from the grid is 0 kWH or less (sometimes I have a net outflow to the grid which gets banked). FL has net metering and my system is grid-tie with no batteries. It works great. Best S. FL months are April or May. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Here is a graph of U.S. PV solar installations per quarter since 2010. It shows rapid growth: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/more-records-for-quarterly-us-solar-installations It shows 930 MW in the July-September quarter. That means 930 MW peak output from the solar cells, not 930 MW of 24-hour baseline capacity. 930 MW baseline would be the output from an average U.S. nuclear plant. I do not know the capacity factor for solar. For wind it is roughly 30% of nameplate capacity. The peak of PV solar output matches peak demand in many places, unlike wind which tends to peak at night. Here is a recent graph of wind turbine output versus total power consumption in Denmark: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/12/postcard-from-the-future-122-wind-power-in-denmark You can see that wind is quite intermittent even on the scale of the entire landmass of Denmark. The good news is, with today's weather forecasting you can predict approximately how much power turbines over a large area will produce for the next few days, so you can schedule other dispatchable energy sources. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: It works great. Is it cost effective?
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: To get kWH/day from peak kW in PV, you multiply by the average full power equivalent hours per day. In FL, this is 4 hours (mostly due to clouds). In NM the number is 5. In the continental US as a whole, the number is probably about 3.5-4. 3.5 hours out of 24 is 14.5%. 4 hours is 16.6%. So the capacity factor is about 15%. The 940 MW sold in the July - September quarter produces roughly 141 MW when it is first installed. It degrades over time after that. 141 MW is roughly 1/7 of an average nuclear power reactor. In other words, solar cell production is about equivalent to 1 nuke every two years. At that rate it will take 200 years to equal our nuclear power capacity. Total U.S. generator capacity is roughly 1,000 GW. So it would take 1,700 years to replace that with solar at the present rate of installation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Here is all kinds of great information about electric power generation: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/ http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/renewable_electricity.cfm
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Total U.S. generator capacity is roughly 1,000 GW. So it would take 1,700 years to replace that with solar at the present rate of installation. Maybe, but the present amount of capacity has doubled 4 times over the last 10 years. If it becomes significantly profitable to install solar over our current methods (due to increased solar collection efficiency and decrease cost of building from production techniques) of energy collection (Nuclear and those insurance payments, coal, etc), then there is no reason the doubling will not continue .. especially when you think about all the jobs it will create. Don't have to be a nuclear engineer to install solar panels.. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: To get kWH/day from peak kW in PV, you multiply by the average full power equivalent hours per day. In FL, this is 4 hours (mostly due to clouds). In NM the number is 5. In the continental US as a whole, the number is probably about 3.5-4. 3.5 hours out of 24 is 14.5%. 4 hours is 16.6%. So the capacity factor is about 15%. The 940 MW sold in the July - September quarter produces roughly 141 MW when it is first installed. It degrades over time after that. 141 MW is roughly 1/7 of an average nuclear power reactor. In other words, solar cell production is about equivalent to 1 nuke every two years. At that rate it will take 200 years to equal our nuclear power capacity. Total U.S. generator capacity is roughly 1,000 GW. So it would take 1,700 years to replace that with solar at the present rate of installation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Wind power is much larger than PV solar at present. That does not mean the future capacity is more, it means wind has been developed longer. See: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp#yearly It is fun to watch the changing graphic map chart at the top right of this page. In 2012, total installed nameplate capacity was 60 GW. With a capacity factor of 30% that's ~18 GW. It produced 3% of U.S. electricity. Compare that to nukes, which are left on all the time to produce baseline electricity. They produce 19% of U.S. electricity. They have roughly 100 GW of capacity. The numbers are in reasonable agreement. They produce 6.3 times more electricity than wind, and they have about 5.5 times more capacity. At the rate wind is expanding it will not take centuries to catch up with nuclear power. It is increasing at around 13 GW nameplate per year, or about 4 nukes. See: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2012_annual_wind_market_report.pdf Once wind reaches parity with nukes, at ~20% of capacity, it will become more difficult to integrate into the network. That's what EPRI said 10 years ago. I believe that wind installations do not degrade as quickly as PV solar. The turbines last longer, and continue to produce efficiently. They last 20 to 30 years. The big expense in making them is for the towers. You can leave the towers and replace only the turbine and blades. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe, but the present amount of capacity has doubled 4 times over the last 10 years. Sure. It has great potential. I would be wary of projecting that kind of growth into the future, because there may be problems integrating it into the net. Could there be problems finding prime locations? I don't know. Some problem might crop up. Then again, it might get cheaper faster than we expect. I wasn't seriously suggesting it would take 1,700 years. I said that to illustrate the size of the market and the fact that solar now produces much less than 1% of our electricity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Wind is terrific as well, however it's pretty hard to improve the tech all that rapidly like solar. It also kills birds, ruins sight lines, etc. But yes, wind is good. I love this article in the economist: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros Europe’s electricity providers face an existential threat ON JUNE 16th something very peculiar happened in Germany’s electricity market. The wholesale price of electricity fell to minus €100 per megawatt hour (MWh). That is, generating companies were having to pay the managers of the grid to take their electricity. It was a bright, breezy Sunday. Demand was low. Between 2pm and 3pm, solar and wind generators produced 28.9 gigawatts (GW) of power, more than half the total. The grid at that time could not cope with more than 45GW without becoming unstable. At the peak, total generation was over 51GW; so prices went negative to encourage cutbacks and protect the grid from overloading. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Wind power is much larger than PV solar at present. That does not mean the future capacity is more, it means wind has been developed longer. See: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp#yearly It is fun to watch the changing graphic map chart at the top right of this page. In 2012, total installed nameplate capacity was 60 GW. With a capacity factor of 30% that's ~18 GW. It produced 3% of U.S. electricity. Compare that to nukes, which are left on all the time to produce baseline electricity. They produce 19% of U.S. electricity. They have roughly 100 GW of capacity. The numbers are in reasonable agreement. They produce 6.3 times more electricity than wind, and they have about 5.5 times more capacity. At the rate wind is expanding it will not take centuries to catch up with nuclear power. It is increasing at around 13 GW nameplate per year, or about 4 nukes. See: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2012_annual_wind_market_report.pdf Once wind reaches parity with nukes, at ~20% of capacity, it will become more difficult to integrate into the network. That's what EPRI said 10 years ago. I believe that wind installations do not degrade as quickly as PV solar. The turbines last longer, and continue to produce efficiently. They last 20 to 30 years. The big expense in making them is for the towers. You can leave the towers and replace only the turbine and blades. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
There's a company called Solar City and what they do is install panels on your house and then sell the electricity back to you at a lower rate than what you pay your utility. These are the sort of innovative things that are happening. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe, but the present amount of capacity has doubled 4 times over the last 10 years. Sure. It has great potential. I would be wary of projecting that kind of growth into the future, because there may be problems integrating it into the net. Could there be problems finding prime locations? I don't know. Some problem might crop up. Then again, it might get cheaper faster than we expect. I wasn't seriously suggesting it would take 1,700 years. I said that to illustrate the size of the market and the fact that solar now produces much less than 1% of our electricity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Wind is terrific as well, however it's pretty hard to improve the tech all that rapidly like solar. It is still moving ahead pretty quickly. Especially offshore installations. In Northern Europe North Sea offshore installations could produce 4 times more electricity than Europe consumes. The North Sea is shallow. It also kills birds . . . It kills thousands of times fewer birds than coal smoke does, and steam from power generator cooling towers do. It kills fewer birds than reflective glass buildings do. If we could replace all coal with wind today, it would save far more birds than it kills. It would also save roughly 20,000 human lives per year. That is how many people are killed by coal smoke particulates. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
It kills thousands of times fewer birds than coal smoke does, and steam from power generator cooling towers do. It kills fewer birds than reflective glass buildings do. If we could replace all coal with wind today, it would save far more birds than it kills. It would also save roughly 20,000 human lives per year. That is how many people are killed by coal smoke particulates. Sure, but if the rate of windmill capacity doubled 7 more times or so, I wouldn't want to be a bird. I also have this weird fear that we might create a drag that slows the spin of the earth's rotation. :D On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Wind is terrific as well, however it's pretty hard to improve the tech all that rapidly like solar. It is still moving ahead pretty quickly. Especially offshore installations. In Northern Europe North Sea offshore installations could produce 4 times more electricity than Europe consumes. The North Sea is shallow. It also kills birds . . . It kills thousands of times fewer birds than coal smoke does, and steam from power generator cooling towers do. It kills fewer birds than reflective glass buildings do. If we could replace all coal with wind today, it would save far more birds than it kills. It would also save roughly 20,000 human lives per year. That is how many people are killed by coal smoke particulates. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
I wrote: At the rate wind is expanding it will not take centuries to catch up with nuclear power. It is increasing at around 13 GW nameplate per year, or about 4 nukes. In other words, at this rate, wind will catch up to nukes and produce ~20% of our electricity in about 20 years. It has to reach about 100 GW actual to do that. It is at 18 GW now and it has another 80 to go. It is increasing at 4 GW actual per year. This may not seem like it adds up. ~100 MW satisfies ~20% of demand. So 500 MW would be enough for the whole country? Nope. As I said, U.S. capacity is 1,000 GW. Because most generators are not run at full capacity 24 hours a day. They are not needed. There is no demand at night. The 1,000 GW is needed to meet peak demand. There is also less demand in winter than summer in many places. Those are round numbers. But as it happens, total net summer capacity is just a tad over 1,000 MW, a nice round number: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, but if the rate of windmill capacity doubled 7 more times or so, I wouldn't want to be a bird. This really is not a problem. Birds are evolved to avoid whacking into large, opaque moving objects. Such as pine trees waving in the wind. In high winds, pine trees in Georgia move a meter or more toward the top. They do not kill any of the birds that are blown along by the high winds. The birds avoid them. They whack into reflective glass all the time, because that is not natural. They are killed by coal smoke because concentrated smoke from forest fires is rare in nature. In the 1970s, wind turbines were small and fast moving. Birds were cut to pieces by them. Modern turbines are slower compared to their total size. That is to say, a modern wind turbine moves quickly through the air, but it is huge, so you can see it a long way off, just as you can see the top of a moving pine tree blown in the wind. Birds have excellent vision. Better than people. Otherwise they could not fly. Many birds love getting blown in the wind, by the way. At some airports they hang around the jet blast runways. The jet engines start up and blow the birds spinning into the air, totally out of control, hundreds of meters away. The birds regain flight control, glide down, and flap back to the area near the runways, where they do it again. They seem to love it, like kids on a water slide. The annoy the airport maintenance people to no end. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
It is always difficult for me to accept that the living world constantly needs our intervention, as if the whole of adaptive evolution never took place - including dramatic catastrophes. Rupert Sheldrake once claimed that some small birds learned to attack products delivered by the milkman- clearly within historical times. I once set up bird feeders and soon found a hummingbird come by, as if to ask, where's my feeder? ( I then put one up for nectar feeders) Tall towers and windmills are a hazard to birds ( they hit the guy wires, too). OTOH, these can offer a wonderful and productive perch for many birds. A tower can be a 1000 or more feet high with no branches to obstruct the view. If a bird is wise enough to avoid the hazards, it might enjoy the convenient view of distant prey.
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: It is always difficult for me to accept that the living world constantly needs our intervention, as if the whole of adaptive evolution never took place - including dramatic catastrophes. Well, natural catastrophes wiped out entire species. We don't want that to happen because of our technology. Generally speaking, as long as the effect from technology is not too destructive, and it resembles some natural effect, animals will adjust to it. As I said, birds will avoid large wind turbine blades because they resemble moving trees. They will not avoid reflective plate glass because nothing like that exists in nature. Water is reflective, but not horizontal, or high up in the sky. Rupert Sheldrake once claimed that some small birds learned to attack products delivered by the milkman- clearly within historical times. That is a widely reported event. A species in the UK called the blue tit learned how to open milk bottles and drink the cream. This was before milk was homogenized. The problem was, the birds would drink down too far, get stuck, and drown. There were many reports of dead birds sticking out of bottles. Then, suddenly, over a few months, that stopped happening. The birds learned to drink only from the top, and leave the rest. Somehow they communicated the technique to other blue tits all over England, because it stopped happening everywhere. Another extraordinary aspect of this was that the birds remembered how to do this for 10 years when there were no milk bottles. Home delivery of milk was curtailed during WWII until the 1950s. When bottles were again delivered, the birds went back to drinking from them, without getting drowned. Several generations of birds somehow passed down the knowledge from their great-grandparents, even though they never saw a milk bottle. Animals are a lot smarter than we realize. On the other hand, other bird species never learned to open the bottles or drink from them. It seems the blue tits particularly love the taste of milk. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
I wrote: In 2012, total installed nameplate capacity was 60 GW. With a capacity factor of 30% that's ~18 GW. It produced 3% of U.S. electricity. Ah ha. It is more than 3% now. That was with 2011 end-of-year capacity. See: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/2012_annual_wind_market_report.pdf Quote: A number of countries are beginning to achieve high levels of wind energy penetration: end-of-2012 installed wind power is estimated to supply the equivalent of nearly 30% of Denmark’s electricity demand, compared to approximately 18% for Portugal and Spain, 16% for Ireland, and 10% for Germany. In the United States, the cumulative wind power capacity installed at the end of 2012 is estimated, in an average year, to equate to roughly 4.4% of electricity demand. So back to my back-of-the-envelope comparison with nukes: * Nukes produced 19% of electricity compared to 4.4% from wind, ~4.3 times more. * Nukes have about 5.5 more actual capacity than wind (not nameplate). Those numbers are in pretty good agreement. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
It is about 440 square feet on top of my flat patio roof. It is 2 strings of 15 in parallel for a total of 30 panels. The total installed cost was $35k, but I got back $20k from the state of FL (an incentive for growing a solar business in FL) and then I got back about $2500 in tax credits. So the net to me was about $12.5k. I have a single grid tie inverter that connects directly to my AC main. FPL installed a bi-directional reading main meter and a separate meter to measure how much power I am generating instantaneously (at no expense to me). Now I can go to the FPL web site, log into my account, and see a plot of my monthly, daily, and every 15 minutes power generation. There is not a single moving part in the system - not even a fan. My inverter is outside so as not to dump the waste heat into the house where it would have to be pumped out by the A/C. Each 15 panel string produces about 450VDC under load and this is converted with a switching grid-tie inverter to the 220V at 96% efficiency (I tested it). This works out well because the available current (hence power) varies constantly with cloud cover. With complete cloud cover I get about 30% output. When you can't even see the sun through the clouds, you still get about 10% output. This means I am still making power at 450VDC when it is raining - so the electrical connections and the panels must all be nicely waterproof of the electrolytic corrosion would eat it up. That really worries me about the thin film panels that they are mounting directly to the roof surface now. They will be making power while under water during the rain. I also have a separate directly heated solar hot water system. This is a simple system that is very reliable - simple because we are in a clime where it never freezes. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I have a 5.3 kW peak fixed PV system that provides most of the power for my house. Wow! How many square feet is that? How much did it cost? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
The way I look this is a little different. I was the first house in my community of 50k to have PV. When I go to sell my house (which I plan to do next year), if the solar power is the feature that attracts the customer that buys my house, then it was paid back in that one instant. It has been in service for 5 years now. Before the PV was installed, my winter electric bills were about $110/month (now 0). My summer bills were about $220-$275 and now peak at about $70 for a maximum of 2 months. There is another unaccounted for effect with having PV installed. As you become partly energy independent, you begin doing things to economize in your energy usage you may have previously just ignored. You like seeing your energy usage and bill go down - it is a feedback effect compelling you to be ever more green. Soon you are the area energy champion! Besides that, I always wanted to. I designed the system myself, but I am an EE. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: It works great. Is it cost effective?
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Individually it's an interesting story, but on a mass scale it doesn't quite add up - yet. We need to be installing these solar panels without subsidies (and including all install costs, labor etc) and still paying less than general utility fees over 10 years or so. When that happens, install growth will accelerate very quickly. Everyone and anyone that wants a job installing these things, will have one. The only issue might be what happens to the grid itself when all the paying customers start vanishing. That could be a problem.. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: The way I look this is a little different. I was the first house in my community of 50k to have PV. When I go to sell my house (which I plan to do next year), if the solar power is the feature that attracts the customer that buys my house, then it was paid back in that one instant. It has been in service for 5 years now. Before the PV was installed, my winter electric bills were about $110/month (now 0). My summer bills were about $220-$275 and now peak at about $70 for a maximum of 2 months. There is another unaccounted for effect with having PV installed. As you become partly energy independent, you begin doing things to economize in your energy usage you may have previously just ignored. You like seeing your energy usage and bill go down - it is a feedback effect compelling you to be ever more green. Soon you are the area energy champion! Besides that, I always wanted to. I designed the system myself, but I am an EE. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: It works great. Is it cost effective?
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be installing these solar panels without subsidies (and including all install costs, labor etc) and still paying less than general utility fees over 10 years or so. I would agree to the no subsidy plan, but only after we level the playing field: 1. We stop subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear power. Oil subsidies should include a large fraction of the cost of wars in the middle east. 2. We start reimbursing the families of people disabled and killed by coal smoke particulates. I would say $1 million per death, and $100,000 for each disabled person. That would add about $30 billion to the cost of coal-fired electricity. Right now the power companies pay nothing to the victims. They literally get away with murder. 3. We factor in the likely future cost of global warming, to start paying it down now. That is likely to be trillions per year. A modest $100 billion surcharge on gas and coal would begin to address it. 4. We repeal the Price Anderson act. That means nuclear plants would have to shop for accident insurance. Under this act, they are protected against lawsuits. Uncle Sam pays the victims of a nuclear disaster. Removing this protection will probably make nuclear power uninsurable and untenable. It will certainly make it far more expensive than the alternatives, given the accidents at TMI and Fukushima. After we implement these reforms, I am confident that wind and solar will be cheaper by far than these other energy sources, and will need no subsidies. In short, we should let the free market work its magic. There is no chance these policies will be implemented. Conservatives would fight them tooth and nail. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
Yeah, good points all. The implicit insurance subsidy for Nuclear is pretty massive. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: We need to be installing these solar panels without subsidies (and including all install costs, labor etc) and still paying less than general utility fees over 10 years or so. I would agree to the no subsidy plan, but only after we level the playing field: 1. We stop subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear power. Oil subsidies should include a large fraction of the cost of wars in the middle east. 2. We start reimbursing the families of people disabled and killed by coal smoke particulates. I would say $1 million per death, and $100,000 for each disabled person. That would add about $30 billion to the cost of coal-fired electricity. Right now the power companies pay nothing to the victims. They literally get away with murder. 3. We factor in the likely future cost of global warming, to start paying it down now. That is likely to be trillions per year. A modest $100 billion surcharge on gas and coal would begin to address it. 4. We repeal the Price Anderson act. That means nuclear plants would have to shop for accident insurance. Under this act, they are protected against lawsuits. Uncle Sam pays the victims of a nuclear disaster. Removing this protection will probably make nuclear power uninsurable and untenable. It will certainly make it far more expensive than the alternatives, given the accidents at TMI and Fukushima. After we implement these reforms, I am confident that wind and solar will be cheaper by far than these other energy sources, and will need no subsidies. In short, we should let the free market work its magic. There is no chance these policies will be implemented. Conservatives would fight them tooth and nail. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: I also have this weird fear that we might create a drag that slows the spin of the earth's rotation. :D If we could work out a global windmill installation that could accomplish that, I think our energy problems would be solved for a while. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. Because the sun goes away at night. It can meet a large fraction of our needs, especially in places such as Nevada, where peak demand occurs when the sun is brightest and air conditioning is needed. Solar water heating is a neglected resource. It should be more common in Florida and the Southwest. It is very common in Japan. I think it is common in Australia these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
It's actually interesting, but PV batteries are getting so good some utilities are disallowing systems which feedback energy into the grid via these batteries because homeowners are actually arbitraging. They're actually charging their batteries off the grid and then selling back into it when prices are higher. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. Because the sun goes away at night. It can meet a large fraction of our needs, especially in places such as Nevada, where peak demand occurs when the sun is brightest and air conditioning is needed. Solar water heating is a neglected resource. It should be more common in Florida and the Southwest. It is very common in Japan. I think it is common in Australia these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-the-logjam-on-10mw-of-california-solar-storage-projects Since this spring, those utilities have been requiring any net-metered solar power projects that include batteries to go through a lengthy and expensive process to prove their batteries aren’t feeding stored grid power back to the utility, while getting credited for delivering green, solar-generated electrons. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: It's actually interesting, but PV batteries are getting so good some utilities are disallowing systems which feedback energy into the grid via these batteries because homeowners are actually arbitraging. They're actually charging their batteries off the grid and then selling back into it when prices are higher. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. Because the sun goes away at night. It can meet a large fraction of our needs, especially in places such as Nevada, where peak demand occurs when the sun is brightest and air conditioning is needed. Solar water heating is a neglected resource. It should be more common in Florida and the Southwest. It is very common in Japan. I think it is common in Australia these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. I think if we found ready sources of energy, demand would increase and we'd find new ways of using it. Similar developments have been seen in computer processor speed, disk storage capacity and network bandwidth. Or the agricultural revolution, for that matter. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Exponential growth in Solar Energy
I think the folks of Shanghai might disagree with that one. The only real use of Solar is to replace fossil fuels. On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There is a lot to be said for PV solar, but it cannot meet 100% of our energy needs unless an improved battery comes along. I think if we found ready sources of energy, demand would increase and we'd find new ways of using it. Similar developments have been seen in computer processor speed, disk storage capacity and network bandwidth. Or the agricultural revolution, for that matter. Eric
