| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | With current battery technology going 100% is expensive. |
Note that calculations in the Energy Matters post used 1/3 the current cost of lithium batteries in anticipation of battery costs coming down in the future.
| RandyHiker wrote: | | You keep hammering on the 100% option, but haven't bothered to address whether using solar and wind sources to provide electrons when available and thus reduce oil, gas and coal usage and emissions. |
You can't replace your existing energy sources with an intermittent source - all you can do is add that unreliable source to the mix, because the fact that it's intermittent means you still need your reliable sources when the intermittent source is not producing. So e.g., in the case where you add a bunch of solar capacity to help service peak loads for six hours a day during a few months of summer, sure you're not consuming fossil fuel for those loads, but you've already invested a large amount of fossil fuel in the installation of an energy system that's going to be redundant 90% of the time. If you push the EROI of your solar installation down to one then you haven't reduced the fossil fuel usage at all, you've just converted it into another form with no net gain. Or, as is frequently done, you can mandate that the reliable sources always shut down when intermittent sources are producing and make the reliable sources redundant, but you're still in an intermittent-with-backup situation, which will always be inefficient. So you can pick storage or backup to go with wind & solar but it's always going to be one or the other unless you don't care if your power goes out (e.g., a house off the grid with rooftop solar, but that's not going to work for most people).
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| thunderhead wrote: | | Quote: | | The solution to intermittency now is not storage, it is transmission. Plenty of studies show that it is blowing or shining somewhere in the USA enough to power us |
Nah, you can get a wintertime high pressure that knocks down wind to most of the country while solar is useless during long nights and low-angle days. Then you are looking at nights where you are asking a couple windy scraps of terrain to power the entire nation. Even if that could happen, you'd be installing 100s of gigawatts of high end transmission across the entire continent, and you'd need to build an entire continents worth of generation in a couple small spots. This would require massive over-building to the tune of 1-2 orders of magnitude of increased cost, to maintain any sort of reliability. |
Another reason you can't rely on transmission to deal with intermittency - marginal loss factors.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-plants-hit-by-massive-de-ratings-in-congested-grid-96404/
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
 Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:45 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | With current battery technology going 100% is expensive. |
Note that calculations in the Energy Matters post used 1/3 the current cost of lithium batteries in anticipation of battery costs coming down in the future.
| RandyHiker wrote: | | You keep hammering on the 100% option, but haven't bothered to address whether using solar and wind sources to provide electrons when available and thus reduce oil, gas and coal usage and emissions. |
You can't replace your existing energy sources with an intermittent source - all you can do is add that unreliable source to the mix, because the fact that it's intermittent means you still need your reliable sources when the intermittent source is not producing. So e.g., in the case where you add a bunch of solar capacity to help service peak loads for six hours a day during a few months of summer, sure you're not consuming fossil fuel for those loads, but you've already invested a large amount of fossil fuel in the installation of an energy system that's going to be redundant 90% of the time. If you push the EROI of your solar installation down to one then you haven't reduced the fossil fuel usage at all, you've just converted it into another form with no net gain. Or, as is frequently done, you can mandate that the reliable sources always shut down when intermittent sources are producing and make the reliable sources redundant, but you're still in an intermittent-with-backup situation, which will always be inefficient. So you can pick storage or backup to go with wind & solar but it's always going to be one or the other unless you don't care if your power goes out (e.g., a house off the grid with rooftop solar, but that's not going to work for most people). |
In places like SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico, Baja, Mexico, Texas, etc using solar to power air conditioning makes a lot of sense, but financially and environmentally. Using solar to heat your house in Seattle or Yakima doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean it never makes sense to do so -- which seems be what you are asserting.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | In places like SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico, Baja, Mexico, Texas, etc using solar to power air conditioning makes a lot of sense, but financially and environmentally. |
Please explain why.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:26 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | In places like SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico, Baja, Mexico, Texas, etc using solar to power air conditioning makes a lot of sense, but financially and environmentally. |
Please explain why. |
In SoCal PGE charges $0.32854 per kilowatt/hour for electrons. Running a standard 15,000 btu air conditioner consumes 1500 watts or 1.5 kilowatts/hours per hour roughly 12 kilowatt hours per day. Roughly $4 per day. Figuring half the year needs AC this works out to $720 per year in AC electrical costs.
I recently installed 400 watts of solar on my RV. Cost was about $1 per watt for the panels and about another $150 for cables, controller and brackets. Scaling up to a 1600 watt system , figure about $2000. So the energy savings just for summer air conditioning would recover costs in just three summers. Manufacturers claim a 30 year lifespan for panels, but I figure 20 is more realistic. Which works out to $ 12,200 in electrical cost savings --assuming rates stay the same.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:35 am |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | So e.g., in the case where you add a bunch of solar capacity to help service peak loads for six hours a day during a few months of summer, sure you're not consuming fossil fuel for those loads, but you've already invested a large amount of fossil fuel in the installation of an energy system that's going to be redundant 90% of the time. If you push the EROI of your solar installation down to one then you haven't reduced the fossil fuel usage at all, you've just converted it into another form with no net gain. |
The savings from *adding* systems which you must maintain on top of maintaining the systems you must use to back them up...
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:37 am |
|
|
Reality seeps in around the edges...
| Quote: | | The EU has just released its summit statement of the European Council meeting. It does not include any 2050 climate commitment or target in what is a big win for climate realists, Eastern European governments and their new German ally. |
Germany joins eastern european nations who know what they see when they see it
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chief Joseph
Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 7703 | TRs | Pics
Location: Verlot-Priest Lake |
Exactly as I said earlier, the issue is not so much if GW is being escalated-changed by human influence, the issue is getting Humans to accept it and to change their habits. Good luck with that, people do not like change.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:30 am |
|
|
Few folks choose to change their habits to the degree they claim is necessary, thus demonstrating their actual value decisions.
The excuses for this were laid out in several cases a while back, but the reasons put forth....do not eclipse the actual actions and the facts they demonstrate about the choices made. Even the loudest proponents still refuse to stop knowingly wasting resources for such trivial things are their personal desire to use aircraft for vacations, or burning resources to go hiking.
This being the case, there is little if any reason for anyone else to do so. When the diehard believers won't choose to put the earth above their own wants, telling others they must do so is a dead letter and for good reason.
There is no chance we'll get to where it's claimed we 'need' to be unless the true believers act on their own, en masse, without waiting to compel others to do what they will not choose to do themsselves. Markets reveal people's *actual* values, not ones they claim to have. Start those cuts now, today, in your own life...the curve here shows how much you need to do.
https://www.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CICERO/can-we-keep-global-warming-well-below-2c
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | In places like SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico, Baja, Mexico, Texas, etc using solar to power air conditioning makes a lot of sense, but financially and environmentally. |
Please explain why. |
In SoCal PGE charges $0.32854 per kilowatt/hour for electrons. Running a standard 15,000 btu air conditioner consumes 1500 watts or 1.5 kilowatts/hours per hour roughly 12 kilowatt hours per day. Roughly $4 per day. Figuring half the year needs AC this works out to $720 per year in AC electrical costs.
I recently installed 400 watts of solar on my RV. Cost was about $1 per watt for the panels and about another $150 for cables, controller and brackets. Scaling up to a 1600 watt system , figure about $2000. So the energy savings just for summer air conditioning would recover costs in just three summers. Manufacturers claim a 30 year lifespan for panels, but I figure 20 is more realistic. Which works out to $ 12,200 in electrical cost savings --assuming rates stay the same. |
Fair enough. The abundant sunshine and relatively high cost of electricity in California probably makes rooftop solar more feasible there than in most places. But I did run a few numbers myself that I pulled from various websites that still make me question the economics of it all. I don't have the sources for everything but you can quickly come up with more or less the same numbers with a little effort.
A central air conditioner in an average size home (~1850sqft) will likely use 3 to 5 kW per hour for much of the day. If you take 4kW per hour as an average, according to NREL's PVWatts calculator https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php a home in Palm Springs, CA would probably need a 6kW system in order to meet that need for at least a few hours a day on June 22nd, the sunniest day of the year. The right-hand columns in my graphic below show the hourly output between 6am and 7pm. You can probably tweak the solar system parameters to do a little better - I just used the standard values.
According to this page: https://news.energysage.com/much-solar-panels-save/ the average cost of a 6kW system in California this year is $18,180 and the estimated 20-year utility savings would be $29,424. I saw another estimate for savings in California at $128/mo so those numbers agree. So that's all well and good, but if you took that $18,180, invested it and managed to make 6% annually, after 20 years you'd end up with almost double the projected savings on your electric bill. I'm not sure what the residual value of the solar installation is after 20 years but I wouldn't think it would be much, if anything. But there may be federal or state incentives that help with the initial investment.
Also, it's been argued that utility-scale solar should be about half the cost of rooftop, due to efficiencies of scale and higher capacity factors for the panels since they're set up to track the sun rather than being fixed. https://www.brattle.com/news-and-knowledge/news/study-by-brattle-economists-quantifies-the-benefits-of-utility-scale-solar-pv
 Solar savings CA
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
32 cents per KWh seems a bit high, thats german levels of incompetence. And while LAX basin government is incompetent, its not nearly THAT incompetent. I see ~20 cents per KWh in the LAX area. Still, at that rate, and with decent sunshine, rooftop solar panels do make financial sense in that market.
https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/averageenergyprices_losangeles.htm
https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/residential/r-customerservices/r-cs-understandingyourrates/r-cs-ur-electricrates?_afrLoop=379146205624039&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=c1chnroxq_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dc1chnroxq_1%26_afrLoop%3D379146205624039%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dc1chnroxq_30
Given 20 cents per kwh, no subsidies, grid net metering(all solar generated is useful) and a 20% capacity factor...
So figure in LAX you can get a system installed for 3,000 per kw, and at residential rates of 0.2 per kwh, and 9000 hours in a year. 9000*.2*.2 = 360 dollars generated per kwh per year=~8.3 year payback time. If the panels last 20 years with a little cleaning, it is a reasonable, perhaps even a good, investment, assuming you are not right on the beach(fog) and have good southern exposure.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:55 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | 32 cents per KWh seems a bit high |
Those are PGE's rates. They don't have the abundance of federally paid for hydropower that Washington does.
| Parked Out wrote: | | I saw another estimate for savings in California at $128/mo so those numbers agree. |
Right but my figures were for a 1600 watt system and you used cost figures for a 6000 watt system. So your comparison uses capacity 4x greater but assumes the same savings -- of course you can "prove" anything if you make up your own facts.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | I saw another estimate for savings in California at $128/mo so those numbers agree. |
Right but my figures were for a 1600 watt system and you used cost figures for a 6000 watt system. So your comparison uses capacity 4x greater but assumes the same savings -- of course you can "prove" anything if you make up your own facts. |
So a 6kW system is $18,180 but your 1.6kW system is $2000? Can you provide any backup for that or are you "making up your own facts?" In any event the savings are going to be proportional.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:56 pm |
|
|
| Parked Out wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | I saw another estimate for savings in California at $128/mo so those numbers agree. |
Right but my figures were for a 1600 watt system and you used cost figures for a 6000 watt system. So your comparison uses capacity 4x greater but assumes the same savings -- of course you can "prove" anything if you make up your own facts. |
So a 6kW system is $18,180 but your 1.6kW system is $2000? Can you provide any backup for that or are you "making up your own facts?" In any event the savings are going to be proportional. |
As I said in my post I recently installed a 400 watt system on my RV. The panels cost about $1 per watt.
These are the panels I installed. They are currently priced at $99 for a 100 watt panel.
Newpowa 100 Watt Monocrystalline 100W 12V Solar Panel High Efficiency Mono Module RV Marine Boat Off Grid https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LY02BOA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_pdPMCb33P26TC
I did a DIY install.
One thing I've learned from getting bids for work on my house is that labor costs can be highly variable and that some contractors will really gouge you. I got three bids on a plumbing job once: The high bid was $6500 and the low bid was $2500. So I'm sure that you could find a contractor that will install a 6000 watt system for $18,000 or even $26,000 , but also much less.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:06 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | residential rates of 0.2 per kwh, |
PGE rates are 0.32 per according to their website for "tiered" usage. The 0.2 per kwh rate only applies to a low amount per month of usage -- enough for lights, the refrigerator and similar appliances. When you start running the AC the rates climb as monthly usage climbs.
PGE has a complex set of rate plans. They have cheap rates for nighttime usage for recharging an electric vehicle for example. In SoCal the high rates apply for daytime usage as this is when demand is highest.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
