Solar Power

[Grover-98]

Basically i live in a house which uses solar power. We have 8 pannels on the roof and a wind generator. This post is a method of venting my stress of how bad it is! even with all the pannels and wind generator all i had on today was a computer fridge and freezer! and the tv for maybe an hour all other appliences are turned off no standby!

And even after a great sunny day like today we always have to put the loud generator on to get through the night and on rainy days we need it going all day.


So in conclusion i dont care how good the technology gets im never electing for solar power on my individual home i am happy to back large wind fars and solar plants to power homes but i will never pay for a individual system!

Venting completed :D

[abaddonxi]

Ah, but think of those sunny days when the batteries are full and every appliance is running madly.

Must happen a couple of times a year.:D

Simon

[Grover-98]

Ah, but think of those sunny days when the batteries are full and every appliance is running madly.

Must happen a couple of times a year.:D

Simon

Yeah but no matter how nice the day we need the generator on that night

and between the diesel generator running the pool pump (this is not hooked up to our solar as it is too draining), and the petrol generator which is next to my bedroom window! i find nights rather frustrating!

[Blknight.aus]

that systems worth about 2000 watts and if your running the deep cycle batteries down all the time then they wont last long.....

any odds of putting most of the stuff on the grid and keeping the solar for things like lighting fanstv and computers?

[Grover-98]

Its a $30,000 dollar system and we were promised it would be able to run all that we would require and that it could hold enough power to last 10days without charge we got jibbed

[waynep]

8 panels I'm guessing say 80 Watts each ? so 640 Watts total generation capacity in full sun.( exluding wind power ) ?

What capacity do you have in your batteries ( in terms of total amp hours ) ?

Those systems need regular maintenance. ( not saying you don't with yours ). Many years ago, we were visiting some hippie friends who live in the bush - he was complaining his solar system ( about the same size as yours ) wasn't working properly. So I poked around with his multimeter. Turned out there was about a half volt drop between each battery because of gunk and corrosion on the terminals. We took all the batteries apart and cleaned all the terminals with baking soda solution - worked a treat after that. Ran all their lights, TV, and occassional power tools no probs.

[zulu Delta 534]

Fascinating that you have to run a diesel generator to generate power to run an electric pump to filter the pool. For how many hours a day? I would be thinking of powering the pump another way.
I dare say that most of your appliances are still 240v. There are some great appliances that are built for the recreational market that will service your home more economically.
Regards
Glen

[Grover-98]

We run it three hours a day!

[JDNSW]

I think that your system is about half the size you need. My system has a total of twenty panels, sixteen on trackers and four fixed. It cost about the same as yours. It normally runs refrigerator, freezer, computer, TV, lights, power tools. For the first six months we had it installed we did not run the generator at all, and I think we only ran it about three times in the first year.

Since then, the trackers have failed (and the manufacturer no longer exists, and I can't even get circuit diagrams - and they filed the numbers off the ICs!) and my batteries are getting old, so I have to run the generator about once a week on average. You have to watch power useage - forget any heating device, except a microwave is OK because you don't use it for long, watch "standby" power use, no big TVs, get six star fridge and freezer, forget airconditioning.

Zulu Delta 534 - we looked at running low voltage appliances rather than 240v. In theory, you save on the conversion, and the appliances are generally more efficient. However, in practice, the low voltage appliances usually cost around double the price of the 240v one, and there are far fewer to choose from. A further complication is that for a house size system you are looking at 24 or probably 48volts (because there is a limit to the size of single cells you can manhandle, and you don't want to run cells in parallel if possible).

In our setup, the major drains are the fridge and freezer (and I recently bought a new fridge that uses less than half the power that the one bought fifteen years ago does). We have two identical 24v systems and inverters, one running the fridge and one the freezer, each with other bits of the house on them (for example, behind my computer desk there are two four way power points, one on each system, and I swap bits between them depending on how the useage on each system is going.

Hope this helps someone.

John

[PhilipA]

Your experiences confirm top me what I have long suspected. That solar is infant technology and pretty unreliable. It's use in cities as opposed to remote locations is bordering on ludicrous.

I went to White Cliffs recently to be asked by a local what I thought was the best day they had ever had. I had no idea. The person said "the day they connected the grid" and decommissioned the spectacular but unsuccessful solar plant.

I believe an element of the Green's agenda is that it is sinful to have appliances and particularly aircon.
Their simplistic insistence that we all should live on solar and wind is really a religious conviction and anyone who disagrees is a heretic to be burnt at the stake.

On a similar issue I recall recently talking to a friend and saying that we only used 100litres per person per day of town water, and I felt this is pretty good seeing the objective was 145litres.

His first response was "do you have a diswasher?" "get rid of it". I am unclean. A heretic.

I recall a similar thread on this forum some time ago when someone claimed wind was great and that it would only cost about 67cents a KW to produce. I looked at my bill and I pay 13cents a KW at retail. Who of us would like to ( or could) pay 6-10 times the current cost for power.

Even if coal generation cost doubled or tripled with the cost of cleaning the CO2 or sequestration, solar and wind can only be fringe technologies and to think otherwise I fear is "cloud cookoo land"
Regard sPhilip A

[JDNSW]

Your experiences confirm top me what I have long suspected. That solar is infant technology and pretty unreliable. It's use in cities as opposed to remote locations is bordering on ludicrous.

I went to White Cliffs recently to be asked by a local what I thought was the best day they had ever had. I had no idea. The person said "the day they connected the grid" and decommissioned the spectacular but unsuccessful solar plant.

I believe an element of the Green's agenda is that it is sinful to have appliances and particularly aircon.
Their simplistic insistence that we all should live on solar and wind is really a religious conviction and anyone who disagrees is a heretic to be burnt at the stake.

On a similar issue I recall recently talking to a friend and saying that we only used 100litres per person per day of town water, and I felt this is pretty good seeing the objective was 145litres.

His first response was "do you have a diswasher?" "get rid of it". I am unclean. A heretic.

I recall a similar thread on this forum some time ago when someone claimed wind was great and that it would only cost about 67cents a KW to produce. I looked at my bill and I pay 13cents a KW at retail. Who of us would like to ( or could) pay 6-10 times the current cost for power.

Even if coal generation cost doubled or tripled with the cost of cleaning the CO2 or sequestration, solar and wind can only be fringe technologies and to think otherwise I fear is "cloud cookoo land"
Regard sPhilip A

Actually, I think that solar does have a place in cities as a feed-in supplemental power source. It has the advantage that being distributed, and producing most power in the hottest weather, it eases the burden on peak power generation and distribution capabilities. But its use is anathema to those with a vested interest in centralised power generation (power companies and unions), which is why reasonable feed-in prices have not become universal. But simple calculations can show that large scale solar power generation is not really feasible. Wind is not much better. As far as I can see, the only possible replacements for coal are nuclear or possibly geothermal. And carbon sequestration for coal fired plants would, I suspect, do a lot more than double or triple costs of generation.

However, there are certainly economies in energy use that can be made, although in general they will not be made unless the price becomes much higher. Some examples include the probability of flat screen TV sets that use only 10% of what current ones do, currently available appliances of all kinds which have standby power of milliwatts instead of the 10-50 watts typical of many. In some parts of the country heating and cooling houses represent a large part of energy use - and simple insulation can dramatically reduce this. In most of Australia solar hot water makes both energy and economic sense - I have used solar hot water since moving into this house without problems or difficulties - and for many Australian households, hot water represents the biggest single use of energy.

John

[PhilipA]

In most of Australia solar hot water makes both energy and economic sense - I have used solar hot water since moving into this house without problems or difficulties - and for many Australian households, hot water represents the biggest single use of energy.

But hey, are you not just ignoring the cost?

I did a 'back of envelope" calculation when I recently replaced my Hot water system with another off peak.
Say the life of a HW system is 10 years . An off peak 350litre costs say $700. Operation for me at off peak 1 costs about $18 per quarter. Total cost 10 years $1500

Solar HW IF NO POWER USED AT ALL =$4000 plus.

How is this good for anybody??? This is a completely inefficient use of resources especially considering that off peak hot water is effectively a free good as power station boilers must be operated 24 hours , AND THIS WILL BE SO FOR THE NEXT 20-50 YEARS.

Similarly solar .
Now let me see. According to this thread the systems generated about 640watts and cost $30,000. being generous they generate about 2.4 KW hours= 640 x 4hours average per day.
Lets say the life is 10 years and I think this is generous.

So lets say without discounted cash flow that is $3000 per year.
So the cost per Kw is $3000 divided by 2.4 x365=730.
So the cost per KW HR is $4.10 per kilowatt hour. (vs 13 cents for grid power which MUST include all capital cost, fuel cost,distribution cost, profits etc etc or they go broke)

Gee that is really good economics.

Regards Philip Armbruster

[JDNSW]

But hey, are you not just ignoring the cost?

I did a 'back of envelope" calculation when I recently replaced my Hot water system with another off peak.
Say the life of a HW system is 10 years . An off peak 350litre costs say $700. Operation for me at off peak 1 costs about $18 per quarter. Total cost 10 years $1500

Solar HW IF NO POWER USED AT ALL =$4000 plus.

How is this good for anybody??? This is a completely inefficient use of resources especially considering that off peak hot water is effectively a free good as power station boilers must be operated 24 hours , AND THIS WILL BE SO FOR THE NEXT 20-50 YEARS.

Similarly solar .
Now let me see. According to this thread the systems generated about 640watts and cost $30,000. being generous they generate about 2.4 KW hours= 640 x 4hours average per day.
Lets say the life is 10 years and I think this is generous.

So lets say without discounted cash flow that is $3000 per year.
So the cost per Kw is $3000 divided by 2.4 x365=730.
So the cost per KW HR is $4.10 per kilowatt hour. (vs 13 cents for grid power which MUST include all capital cost, fuel cost,distribution cost, profits etc etc or they go broke)

Gee that is really good economics.

Regards Philip Armbruster

Obviously, the results you get depend on the figures you put in. You can expect even off peak electricity to increase fairly dramatically in price in the future, so I doubt if you can say the price will stay that low. And prices vary even today quite a lot depending on who supplies your power - go to any rural area and the price is dramatically higher as a general rule.

Your figures for system life are low except in the case of solar hot water where it will be very dependent on the water quality. Many solar panels have a guaranteed life of twenty years, so your life expectancy of ten years is a bit wide of the mark. In my case solar panels are fourteen years old and still putting out almost the same power as new - I'll admit the trackers were a bad buy, but they seemed like a good idea at the time. Batteries have an expected life of ten to twenty years, but are not used for systems feeding into the grid. As for solar hot water systems, subject to the remark above about water quality, I would point out that my system is fourteen years old and has never missed a beat. I know people who have solar hot water systems over twenty years old.

But I agree that the industry is in its infancy. I recently (May 2008) did a similar calculation to the one you outline for my son who needed to replace an electric hot water system. The difference was a lot less than what you quote - from memory was about $1400 for the electric and $2500 for the solar (installed costs), with a payback time at his electricity costs of about six years. But the reason he got the electric replacement was that he could get one of them installed within 24 hours, where the nearest solar installer was 150km away and availability was minimum of ten days. Not good when you have no hot water, its cold, and you have small children!

John

[Lionel]

I believe an element of the Green's agenda is that it is sinful to have appliances and particularly aircon.
Their simplistic insistence that we all should live on solar and wind is really a religious conviction and anyone who disagrees is a heretic to be burnt at the stake.


The Greens are essentially anti-capitalist; they oppose anything to do with mining, forestry industry, etc.

They are the most hypocritical people in my opinion, and an example of this was, having banged on for years about our high per-capita CO2 emissions, immediately bagged the recent govt. 5% emission target; on the basis that Penny Wong had worked out the projected population increase over the period of the reduction and projected a per-capita reduction of much more than the 5% by taking it into account!

Bob Brown immediately described it as a "fudge". What a hypocrite that guy is! :mad:

Cheers,

Lionel

[PhilipA]

I believe the $2500 solar hot water quote for your son was less the government subsidy. When I looked it was about $4000.

This is quote by Origin I just did on the internet page.
You will see that the total cost for my house is $4750.
Regardless of who pays the cost is $4750.


Also I had a look at several web pages on the costs/benefits and all I can say is what crap and propaganda it is. If a family spent the sort of money on hot water that the examples showed I would kill them all.

Look this is a basic economic management issue. If a government pays over the odds for services this is in economic terms inefficient and lowers the income of the whole country. Its the same a building a dam that no one uses or a railway thet no one uses . Hmmm Like Ord River and the Darwin railway .

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/02/1345.jpg Replace internal electric hot water system with external electric solar hot water You pay:$4720 Product details
Includes:
Dual collectors
315L tank
Warranty (http://www.originenergy.com.au/files/dux-solarhw-warranty.pdf)
Standard installation and commissioning Subject to household eligibility you may also qualify for a further $1,000 rebate from the AGO (http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/solarho****er/index.html). -$1000 You may also qualify for a further $800 rebate from the NSW government (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/rebates/ccfhws.htm). -$800 Total cost after successful post-sale rebate applications $2920
Regards Philip A

[JDNSW]

The Greens are essentially anti-capitalist; they oppose anything to do with mining, forestry industry, etc.

They are the most hypocritical people in my opinion, and an example of this was, having banged on for years about our high per-capita CO2 emissions, immediately bagged the recent govt. 5% emission target; on the basis that Penny Wong had worked out the projected population increase over the period of the reduction and projected a per-capita reduction of much more than the 5% by taking it into account!

Bob Brown immediately described it as a "fudge". What a hypocrite that guy is! :mad:

Cheers,

Lionel

The Greens represent an extremist position. Like most extremists, they consider regard everyone who is not in complete agreement with them as heretics, fit to be burned at the stake.

But the simple fact is that the earth's climate has no cognisance of "per capita" emissions - all that affects climate is the total numbers. Because of this much of the rhetoric about Australia's need to reduce emissions is totally misleading. Even if Australia ceased all emissions or doubled emissions, it would make no appreciable difference to world climate, or even Australian climate. Because Australia has a small population, its contribution to total emissions is small, and you could argue that Australia is doing its part by keeping the population small (although recent government policy has seemed to be trying to remove this advantage). The major problem with CO2 emissions is not the "per capita" figure but the number of "capita" - and almost nobody is prepared to even mention let alone discuss this problem.

The only real reasons for Australia to reduce emissions are in the slim hope of persuading the major emitters to do something (probably the only ones that really matter at present are the USA, China, India and the EU) or to forestall trade barriers from countries that have their own emission reductions. But I have yet to hear these arguments being used.

John

John

[mcrover]

But hey, are you not just ignoring the cost?

I did a 'back of envelope" calculation when I recently replaced my Hot water system with another off peak.
Say the life of a HW system is 10 years . An off peak 350litre costs say $700. Operation for me at off peak 1 costs about $18 per quarter. Total cost 10 years $1500

Solar HW IF NO POWER USED AT ALL =$4000 plus.

How is this good for anybody??? This is a completely inefficient use of resources especially considering that off peak hot water is effectively a free good as power station boilers must be operated 24 hours , AND THIS WILL BE SO FOR THE NEXT 20-50 YEARS.

Similarly solar .
Now let me see. According to this thread the systems generated about 640watts and cost $30,000. being generous they generate about 2.4 KW hours= 640 x 4hours average per day.
Lets say the life is 10 years and I think this is generous.

So lets say without discounted cash flow that is $3000 per year.
So the cost per Kw is $3000 divided by 2.4 x365=730.
So the cost per KW HR is $4.10 per kilowatt hour. (vs 13 cents for grid power which MUST include all capital cost, fuel cost,distribution cost, profits etc etc or they go broke)

Gee that is really good economics.

Regards Philip Armbruster

Yeah did you catch my thread, http://www.aulro.com/afvb/alternate-energies/65905-solar-really-worth.html

Ive done the sums and it doesnt add up for me either.

The hot water though I can see the bennifit, espesially when your building a new house.

Around here it is now part of the 5 star rating that the council forces apon the developers, a water tank, back to grid solar power or solar hot water and other water saving bits and bobs as well as being ready to be connected to recycled water (which is also a crock).


Obviously, the results you get depend on the figures you put in. You can expect even off peak electricity to increase fairly dramatically in price in the future, so I doubt if you can say the price will stay that low. And prices vary even today quite a lot depending on who supplies your power - go to any rural area and the price is dramatically higher as a general rule.

Your figures for system life are low except in the case of solar hot water where it will be very dependent on the water quality. Many solar panels have a guaranteed life of twenty years, so your life expectancy of ten years is a bit wide of the mark. In my case solar panels are fourteen years old and still putting out almost the same power as new - I'll admit the trackers were a bad buy, but they seemed like a good idea at the time. Batteries have an expected life of ten to twenty years, but are not used for systems feeding into the grid. As for solar hot water systems, subject to the remark above about water quality, I would point out that my system is fourteen years old and has never missed a beat. I know people who have solar hot water systems over twenty years old.

But I agree that the industry is in its infancy. I recently (May 2008) did a similar calculation to the one you outline for my son who needed to replace an electric hot water system. The difference was a lot less than what you quote - from memory was about $1400 for the electric and $2500 for the solar (installed costs), with a payback time at his electricity costs of about six years. But the reason he got the electric replacement was that he could get one of them installed within 24 hours, where the nearest solar installer was 150km away and availability was minimum of ten days. Not good when you have no hot water, its cold, and you have small children!

John

The problem that springs to mind for me with stand alone systems is that a lot of the moden batteries Im hearing about cant easilly be recycled, even normal lead acid batteries are pretty rough on the enviroment in the recycling process I hear so how green really is a stand alone solar system?

I understand that not all people can connect to the grid but I dont think if it is possible to do so that a stand alone system should be considered because of this.

Running petrol/diesel generators etc to provide power to run fridges etc is not worth it either as far as the enviroment goes.


The Greens represent an extremist position. Like most extremists, they consider regard everyone who is not in complete agreement with them as heretics, fit to be burned at the stake.

But the simple fact is that the earth's climate has no cognisance of "per capita" emissions - all that affects climate is the total numbers. Because of this much of the rhetoric about Australia's need to reduce emissions is totally misleading. Even if Australia ceased all emissions or doubled emissions, it would make no appreciable difference to world climate, or even Australian climate. Because Australia has a small population, its contribution to total emissions is small, and you could argue that Australia is doing its part by keeping the population small (although recent government policy has seemed to be trying to remove this advantage). The major problem with CO2 emissions is not the "per capita" figure but the number of "capita" - and almost nobody is prepared to even mention let alone discuss this problem.

The only real reasons for Australia to reduce emissions are in the slim hope of persuading the major emitters to do something (probably the only ones that really matter at present are the USA, China, India and the EU) or to forestall trade barriers from countries that have their own emission reductions. But I have yet to hear these arguments being used.

John

John

I never thought of it that way, but im sure it wouldnt hurt to push for lower emisions unless they use it to pish the prices up but not make any headway into reducing emisions.

As far as water useage goes.

On our bill, Mrs Mc and myself here most of the time use 186ltrs per day between the both of us.

We shower everyday, we use the dish washer a couple of times a week and wash clothes on the weekend, 2 or 3 loads normally 7kg washer.

We have my kids every second weekend and also have 2 dogs which also drink water but we dont wash them all that often....because they are dogs :o

We rarely water the garden, I have a water tank to install but I cant yet due to my new shed is sitting there ready to put up.

We dont nessesarilly try to save water but we dont go out of our way to use it either and we use less than half what they want the average to be.

I really do think that if a solar ho****er system could be absorbed into the cost of building a new house then that should be done on all new houses but I see no reason why the power companies dont invest more in solar development and install them for free on peoples/factories roofs and maintain then to feed the grid.

This would not only provide reasonably priced power but provide plenty of jobs, and still centralise the billing of the electricity.

They could do it as you get free off peak power if you have the solar or something like that so it would provide a reason for people to give up space on their roofs yet not cost a crap load for the power co.s.

I would do it just to see the cost of power to not go through the roof but again, how would you control cost?

[PhilipA]

I really do think that if a solar ho****er system could be absorbed into the cost of building a new house then that should be done on all new houses but I see no reason why the power companies dont invest more in solar development and install them for free on peoples/factories roofs and maintain then to feed the grid.

Well I think the reason is that they would then have to charge $2-4 per KWH ( IE 20 to 40 TIMES the current price)or maybe much more for the power produced. People with aircon would loooove that.

You cannot get away from the excessive capital cost vs output and also how would it be stored? Giant batteries or maybe giant flywheels that would devastate the city if the bearings failed.( although I do wonder why more work has not been done on this). Maybe they could put them in old mine pits.

Remember that solar generates most of its output between 10AM and 2PM and the peak demand is at 5-8PM.
Regards Philip A

[mcrover]

Well I think the reason is that they would then have to charge $2-4 per KWH ( IE 20 to 40 TIMES the current price)or maybe much more for the power produced. People with aircon would loooove that.

You cannot get away from the excessive capital cost vs output and also how would it be stored? Giant batteries or maybe giant flywheels that would devastate the city if the bearings failed.( although I do wonder why more work has not been done on this). Maybe they could put them in old mine pits.

Remember that solar generates most of its output between 10AM and 2PM and the peak demand is at 5-8PM.
Regards Philip A

Thats why I said they should be doing much more development in this area.

What happened to the aussie girls (engineering students) that developed solar panels which could be printed onto film by a modified inkjet printer?

They thought it would be possible to cut the cost down to about 10% in the short term to what is possible now though they didnt have the same output as the current panels but also needed no cooling.

There are ways to make it worth while but we need the huge companies to put up the development $ before it will happen.

There is also a bloke that developed a roof tile that is a solar panel which uses water to provide cooling which in turn provides hot water for home use.

If the entire north roof of my house was done in these tiles that would be an array of about 200m2 (roughly) which is a fair size.

These are more expensive but are no harder to lay than standard roof tiles which the only exception of fitting a water line and a plug apparently.

You would then have to have it plumbed and wired but absorbing the cost into the price of new houses wouldne be all that unreasonable.

Imagine if you could mix those 2 technologies together, cheap panels with easy to fit (minus the ho****er unless you fitted a small amount of the other tiles for that purpose) which looked like normal roof tiles......wouldnt be too bad I would think though I prefer a tin roof :D

As said before, it's really in it's infancey but it needs a bit of a kick along I think before it would be really worth it.

As far as storage goes......I wouldnt bother, the biggest users are industry so why not supply solar to them to cut a big chunk from what we have to produce other ways, e.g. wind, wave, nuclear, coal or whatever.

[JDNSW]

Well I think the reason is that they would then have to charge $2-4 per KWH ( IE 20 to 40 TIMES the current price)or maybe much more for the power produced. People with aircon would loooove that.

You cannot get away from the excessive capital cost vs output and also how would it be stored? Giant batteries or maybe giant flywheels that would devastate the city if the bearings failed.( although I do wonder why more work has not been done on this). Maybe they could put them in old mine pits.

Remember that solar generates most of its output between 10AM and 2PM and the peak demand is at 5-8PM.
Regards Philip A

The only practical way of storing solar power is to use excess solar power to pump water back into storages and generate hydroelectricity from it during times of darkness. Not particularly efficient, but does not require a lot of new infrastructure.

Solar power from SA, for example, is at its peak for the east coast peak demand - don't forget that there is a spread of several hours across the grid - already used to shift power between states for peak shaving.

For the reasons you state, solar power is never going to be more than a supplemental source. The only "green" power source that has some promise of providing base load is geothermal - it works round the clock.

John

[isuzurover]

I recall a similar thread on this forum some time ago when someone claimed wind was great and that it would only cost about 67cents a KW to produce. I looked at my bill and I pay 13cents a KW at retail. Who of us would like to ( or could) pay 6-10 times the current cost for power.

Even if coal generation cost doubled or tripled with the cost of cleaning the CO2 or sequestration, solar and wind can only be fringe technologies and to think otherwise I fear is "cloud cookoo land"
Regard sPhilip A


Not sure who posted those figures.

Coal costs 4c/kWh at the moment. Geosequestration is supposed to increase the cost to 8-12 c/kWh (however these numbers are very rubbery). Large solar generators are around 12-15 c/kWh, and costs are still coming down. Nuclear with proper waste treatment/disposal is around 15 c/kWh.

Solar thermal with salt storage (or similar) has significant potential to provide baseload power at reasonable costs.

Around 25% of Denmark's power comes from wind. Hardly a fringe technology.

[Jock The Rock]

Hey mate

I was brought up on a property out in the bush. We had 6 solar panels and not as many batteries as you. The only appliances we had/have (I dont live out there much anymore parents :mad:) were a CD Player, computer and a fridge. We ran a petrol generator when we needed it, and when dad was using power tools.

We upgraded to a mini water turbine, which was great; when it rained :mad:

Now dad has a TV but it only plays VCR and DVD (not very good reception).

Our hot water came from a combustion stove. So it was a case of no fire no hot water :o

I loved it :) but would still like the reliability of mains power.

Many a night was spent with the generator running

So I know where your coming from mate :)

[hoadie72]

Around 25% of Denmark's power comes from wind. Hardly a fringe technology.

Exactly, and Germany produces enough wind power to have decommissioned several nuclear power plants with more on the way.

[PhilipA]

Exactly, and Germany produces enough wind power to have decommissioned several nuclear power plants with more on the way.
Please read this
Germany to stay nuclear in Merkel U-turn - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556830/Germany-to-stay-nuclear-in-Merkel-U-turn.html)

Regards Philip A

[jx2mad]

Whilst not solar power, council told us to install a heat pump hot water service. This operates on a reverse refrigerant system, extracting heat from the air and sending it to the water. All that runs is a 1/4 h/p electric motor when it needs to reheat. Very efficient but costly. Council gave us a rebate to cover extra cost. Also this unit is made in Australia, and will work even in the snowfields in winter as the outside air temp. is far higher than the compressed gas in system. Jim

[oldyella 76]

We installed a solar hot water device 405 litres and 3 panels. Good in summer 2 of us and from about mid April to late Sept we have to turn the power on. If we have a couple of cool days we are boiling the jug for dish washing at tea time.
Boils in summer cold in winter.

[hoadie72]

Please read this
Germany to stay nuclear in Merkel U-turn - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556830/Germany-to-stay-nuclear-in-Merkel-U-turn.html)

Regards Philip A

And?

My point was that you can generate enough electricity from wind sources to replace nuclear power plants, hence it's not a fringe technology.

[away]

We live permnently in a caravan as we travel Oz. We have 4 x 130 Watt panels on the roof and 4 x 130 AH batteries. We have 12 volt appliances for most things that matter ('fridges, telly, laptops, pumps, lights, fans etc) and a couple of 240 volt phone chargers and front-loader washing machine that we use with an inverter.

Our hot water is heated in a gas storage system that is very economical. The van is insulated and we could do without the airconditioner in most places that we have visited.

We have a 2.4 KVA generator that we have never used. We simply have never run out of power. I think the entire system was about $6500.00 to purchase and install and I expect it will last 10+ years at least.

With the cost of powered sites at caravan parks averaging about $4.50 per night more than unpowered sites, we would save at least $1300.00 per year by having the solar setup. It also allows us to free-camp without limiting our stay due to power considerations. Last year we went to Tamworth for the music festival, where it rained for many of the days and was cloudy (or mostly dull as the weather forecast described it) for the rest. We did not need to draw on an external 240Volt source the whole time we were there.

There are NO ongoing costs and yes, the batteries will need to be replaced in seven to ten years, but I am prepared to bet that cheaper, more efficient batteries will be available by then.

For me, I can't imagine any other way of powering our equipment and if I ever decide to live in a house again I wouldn't hesitate to go solar again.

I think that the key is to build in the capacity that you will need. I think that the original poster has possibly underestimated his usage, under-provided for what he does use or has been see-off by the supplier and has not gotten what is needed. A well designed solar outfit should do everything required of it, for a long time, and should pay for itself during its usable lifetime.

As many posters have pointed out, the up-front cost can be very high but the expected lifetime is quite long and solar is the way to go - if you can afford it. If you can't, so be it. No-one is making us install this stuff (yet).

Cheers

Russ.

[PhilipA]

My point was that you can generate enough electricity from wind sources to replace nuclear power plants, hence it's not a fringe technology

Germany is reported in Wikipaedia as having the second largest installed wind power in the world and also that it is 7% of power generation which I consider to be "fringe" .
Now 7% is fine but nuclear/coal provides 93%

This quote is from Bloomberg

Wind has become a bigger factor in Germany and Spain because they both subsidize rates for the renewable energy and give producers preference to sell in wholesale markets. Utilities that acquire power, from Essen-based RWE AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote'ticker=RWE%3AGY) in Germany to Union Fenosa SA (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote'ticker=UNF%3ASM) in Madrid, must buy any available wind and solar power before tapping fossil-fuel plants.
So the growth in wind is driven by subsidy ( which is OK for environmental reasons as long as the cost is not outrageous).

Professor Wolfgang Pfaffenberger of the Bremen Energy Institute is sceptical about the potential for wind power.
"The specific problem is that you cannot always have the wind when you need the energy," he argued.
"That's why at the moment more than 15% of our capacity is wind power - but it produces only 3% of our energy.
Source BBC news 2005
So it looks like it has doubled since 2005, But at what cost if the installed capacity is now 20% plus and the actual generation 7%. And when do they run into diminishing returns ie all the good sites gone.
IMHO wind will remain a fringe technology and in the future base load will be provided by other means such as geosequestration ( in OZ), water pumping, and good old "clean" coal. Wind of course will remain in the mix, not the least because it is there.

This is probably the most interesting. It is the summary of the major German wind energy provider report on the practicality of wind energy. The origin is suspect but they quote directly from the german report so I would think they would have been exposed by now if the summary was bogus.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/Summary.pdf

Regards Philip A

[JDNSW]

............

There are NO ongoing costs and yes, the batteries will need to be replaced in seven to ten years, but I am prepared to bet that cheaper, more efficient batteries will be available by then.

.......
Cheers

Russ.

I would be interested as to your reasons for thinking this - I am now in the position of having to replace my fourteen year old batteries - and there is no viable alternative to lead/acid batteries, same situation as fourteen years ago (or even eighty), and they are even more expensive than they were then, albeit with slight incremental improvements. I know of nothing other than hopes and speculation to suggest that the situation will have changed in ten years.

John

[isuzurover]

Large solar generators are around 12-15 c/kWh, and costs are still coming down.

Meant to say large WIND generators - but I can't seem to edit it now.



Germany is reported in Wikipaedia as having the second largest installed wind power in the world and also that it is 7% of power generation which I consider to be "fringe" .
Now 7% is fine but nuclear/coal provides 93%



Never let facts get in the way of your opinion???


In 2007 the gross electric power generation in Germany totalled 636.5 billion kWh. A major proportion of the electricity supply is based on lignite (24 %), hard coal (22.8 %) and nuclear energy (22.1 %). Natural gas has a share of 12 %. Renewables (wind, water, biomass) account for 14.1 %.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm

67% is coal and nuclear. A long way from your figure.

Renewables are 14% - but I suppose that is still fringe???

As mentioned, Denmark is aroiund 25% wind - is that also fringe???

[PhilipA]

Look I am a bit sick of this .
I was and am trying to separate fact from propaganda.
Your original quote was.

Exactly, and Germany produces enough wind power to have decommissioned several nuclear power plants with more on the way.
This is what I challenged because I have read recent reports that while the Greens hate nuclear they have now reluctantly accepted that wind cannot replace nuclear base load capacity, and they are actually building 19 new coal fired power stations!!!!!

It WAS true several years ago, when Germany had little experience with the ACTUAL situation Vs the PLANNED situation.

To support your arguments you seem to ignore what does not agree.

You then add other renewables to boost your argument, but ignore the findings of the actual providers in Germany.

I refer to the direct quote from the E.ON NETZ WIND REPORT 2005.The second part not in Italics is from the summary report earlier quoted.


In order to guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind farms produce
little or no power, eg. during periods of calm or storm-related shutdowns,
traditional power station capacities must be available as a reserve. This
means that wind farms can only replace traditional power station
capacities to a limited degree. (p. 9)
The degree to which wind-power can obviate the need for conventional power in the
overall portfolio is called its "capacity credit". E.ON reports the results of two
independent studies that reveal that at present the Capacity Credit of wind power is
8%. This is so low that it is, in macro planning terms, effectively zero.

You then quoted


Renewables (wind, water, biomass) account for 14.1 %.

Ah yes but what does WIND contribute? about 7%. Actually 6.4 % from your source (which you failed to mention even though the pie chart was directly below your quote).
Hydropower is 3.6% and it is base load.
Biomass is 3.6% and is base load

In relation to Denmark, yes they have 25%. The articles that I have read state that Denmark is a special case and can only sustain this level because they export a lot of power to Norway. Apparently Denmark is very windy, and most of the German installed capacity is also in the area near Denmark.
You are absolutely correct that coal and nuclear are not 93 %. maybe I should have said OTHER than wind. BUT I could not be fagged googling late at night. It was figurative.
The point is that reality is that wind is only 6.4% in Germany according to your sources .
This is my last posting on the subject.
Why do I bother trying to reveal facts?
Regards Philip A

[isuzurover]

Your original quote was...


Sorry - you are attributing someone elses posts to me - need glasses??? hoadie and I are not the same person.



I am not arguing anything, just quoting a few facts which you have misrepresented. About the only thing correct in your posts was the 7% wind in germany.

You seem to be (now) arguing that wind is pointless because it isn't suitable as a baseload power system or isn't reliable.

All power generation systems have load factors. Basically the percentage of the time they will produce their rated output.

Farmyard Waste 90%
Energy Crops 85%
Landfill Gas 70-90%
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) 70-85%
Waste Combustion 60-90%
Coal 65-85%
Nuclear Power 65-85%
Hydro 30 - 50%
Wind Enegy 25-40%
Wave Power 25%

Sure - coal and nuclear are higher - since they are baseload sysyems. However wind is comparable to hydro.

[away]

I would be interested as to your reasons for thinking this - I am now in the position of having to replace my fourteen year old batteries - and there is no viable alternative to lead/acid batteries, same situation as fourteen years ago (or even eighty), and they are even more expensive than they were then, albeit with slight incremental improvements. I know of nothing other than hopes and speculation to suggest that the situation will have changed in ten years.

John

A recent announcement by the CSIRO and I think UWA, but don't quote me on that, stated that they have developed a hybrid battery technology that uses an accumulator and a capacitor to store more power in a lighter package. They predicted that economies of scale would lead to this new design being as cheap, if not cheaper, than conventional lead-acid batteries.

The plate technology used a different material as well.

It's little announcements like these, combined with the new push toward hybrid and fully-electric vehicles that will accelerate the research into battery technology. The obvious spin-off from these will be for static installations like houses.

But then I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy too!

Cheers

Russ.

[JDNSW]

A recent announcement by the CSIRO and I think UWA, but don't quote me on that, stated that they have developed a hybrid battery technology that uses an accumulator and a capacitor to store more power in a lighter package. They predicted that economies of scale would lead to this new design being as cheap, if not cheaper, than conventional lead-acid batteries.

The plate technology used a different material as well.

It's little announcements like these, combined with the new push toward hybrid and fully-electric vehicles that will accelerate the research into battery technology. The obvious spin-off from these will be for static installations like houses.

But then I'm a "glass is half full" kind of guy too!

Cheers

Russ.

Unfortunately I have been seeing announcements like this for the last twenty years since it first became clear that I would have to have a standalone system when we built here. But nothing has come on the market.

I am aware of the announcement that you refer to, and it was made in the context of batteries for propulsion, where it may well represent a breakthrough (the big advantage of ultracapacitors in the propulsion sphere is that they can accept very high rates of both charge and discharge without damage or significant loss, which is not a major problem for static power systems compared to lead/acid. By combining the two, the CSIRO hopes to provide the advantages of both - but for the foreseeable future, ultracapacitors will be more expensive than lead/acid, as far as I can see.) I have hopes that it might represent a breakthrough for static systems like mine, but I would be very surprised if it was actually on the market and represented a cost advantage within ten years.

John