Well done! Its definitely the way of the future, except its here now.
Printable View
Well done! Its definitely the way of the future, except its here now.
Our household CO2 power Calc. Is 210kg per 30 days.
We offset by being a nett exporter.
However I can honestly say that isn’t the reason I have solar - it’s purely financial.
By comparison - our Defender, when stock, produces 29.5kg of CO2 per 100km.
Therefore each month our vehicles produce more CO2 than our household power requirement.
The biggest emitter isn’t our power needs.
Slunnie , have you considered the price effect of the export of renewables reducing the time that the mainstay of power, the coal fired power stations can operate at an optimal level rather than on and off.
So in effect all of us are paying more for electricity for your goodness.
This includes pensioners , widows and orphans, rental tenants and well everyone who does not export power.
If you have solar power most export is also at times when the electricity is not needed.
Now if you could work out a time shift so that your exports were at peak demand times say 4PM to 9PM , that would be good as some of the awful old Coal fired power stations could then be retired.
Regards PhilipA
Just because a coal-fired power generator can't operate at maximum efficiency doesn't mean that its costing the consumer more overall when they get to use some of the cheaper solar power instead, whether that be from private PV systems or from business venture PV systems.
Batteries will do that. The SA Tesla battery does it and is nicely profitable, so there will soon be lots more of them associated with solar/wind farms.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
The SA Tesla battery is a stability unit. Not a reliable source of ongoing supply/storage.
If it was to be used only for supply it will last about 3 minutes.
My hearts not bleeding here and I just love how you bring orphans and widows into this to just tug on those heartstrings. They price accordingly, the government provides subsidies to promote it and the future challenge for energy suppliers is infrustructure to accomodate these systems - what or how will be interesting to see. Some people think that only coal is the way but the rest of the world is progressing without them. If things were that grim then the system would be very different and energy providers themselves wouldnt be investing into renewables. The power I'm exporting and being used by the next door neighbour is basically free income for the energy suppliers with no input on their behalf, they can reduce the need for the power station and get paid for it. The massive amount of work to allow PV systems onto the network requires a pretty solid business case and environmental awareness and they obviously see reason to drive this, but if becomes increasingly unviable as a system then they will alter the FIT rates to suit. At the end of the day though, the energy companies who are buying and selling electricity and making 10-20c kwh for doing nothing, maintaining nothing and letting the computers read the meter boxs - it's a pretty good deal for them that I don't think is costing the orphans money.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Documentation backing that up would be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
First google hits.Quote:
Originally Posted by scarry
Hornsdale Power Reserve - Wikipedia
Tesla just made its giant battery reserve in South Australia even bigger | CarAdvice
Slunnie , the world is changing in its regard for "renewables"
I have quoted highlights from a new Book called Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger who is a leading environmentalist.
● Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
● The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
● The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium
● 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent
● We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
● Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent
● Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
● “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions
● Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon, and
● The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.
Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the *financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.
You should also have a look at Michael Moore's film if you have not seen it already.
Surely you have woken up to the con of renewable energy after seeing the brits counting wood chips as Renewable when the burning of them produces more CO2 than coal. Wood chips that come from the USA, get railed or roaded to port, shipped to Britain, road or railed to the DRAX power stations and the trees may grow back in 30-50 years.
It reminds me of an old quote I think from the Vietnam war.
"In order to save the village we had to destroy it"
Have you thought of how many people die mining the cobalt in those SA batteries?
The USA is moving out of coal to natural gas at the moment and Australia should follow if we wish to have affordable reliable electricity.
In SA they have concluded that the whole network is being stressed by solar and are planning controls to prevent people exporting their solar power at times of low demand to protect the network.
It could happen to you in the near future also.
Regards PhilipA