03-08-11, 05:41 PM #1441
If you use wind or solar to charge a vehicle, I would bet good money the cost is less than buying fuel. Especially when there is no fuel.
03-08-11, 06:19 PM #1442
That is true for almost any source of electricity. The big cost for EV's is the capital cost of the car, and any replacement batteries. The cost of electricity is relatively small.
03-08-11, 06:37 PM #1443
Just out of curiosity...because this is a really epically long thread...
Did anyone mention lead-acid carbon supercells?
Took me a bit of looking, but I found specs:
03-08-11, 06:41 PM #1444
At least you are aware that grid PV is competitive for a few users because of the 30% subsidy, but seem unaware of the greater "hidden subsidy" these few grid connected PV users enjoy from their non-PV neighbors who are paying for the capital cost of the grid PV's virtual battery, which is so large it can fill in for a week of cloud cover days. See post 1440 for more details.
03-08-11, 07:27 PM #1445
03-08-11, 08:02 PM #1446
Heck, some people have roofs that face east and west. They put panels on both sides and get 85% of what they would have otherwise.
Secondly, if your roof has even partial shade it will do in the output, many do.
Fifth, you can't clean them and in a lot of areas (like Southern Calif, enough grit settles each night and rain is infrequent that this is an issue).
03-08-11, 08:08 PM #1447
Natural gas/biogas 20% (primarily as peakers)
Wind 20% (opportunity)
Solar 20% (opportunity)
Hydro 15% (peaker)
Nuclear 25% (primarily as baseline)
At least you are aware that grid PV is competitive for a few users because of the 30% subsidy, but seem unaware of the greater "hidden subsidy" these few grid connected PV users enjoy from their non-PV neighbors who are paying for the capital cost of the grid PV's virtual battery
03-08-11, 08:14 PM #1448
It does seem it took them a while to work the kinks out...
But coincidentally, this press release came out today-they are manufacturing these batteries out of New Castle, Pennsylvania, and will be shipping them in quantity:
The whole point of using the lead-acid was to bring down the cost...which is projected to rise for NiCD and Li-ion batteries, because they're made out of rather unusual and pricey materials.
Lead-acid batts are less efficient, but they are cheap. Meaning you can bring down the cost of a hybrid or electric car.
Cost is a big issue with the hybrid and electric cars' popularity.
03-08-11, 08:19 PM #1449
03-08-11, 08:23 PM #1450
The grid connected PV can reduce the FUEL use on hot sunny days, but not the ~80+ % of the cost of you bill. Grid PV can only add to that cost as the grid PV people use utility power so little they pay little for the capital invested or even collect from the power company and pay less than zero towards the capital, but those four cloudy days (or nights) that happen when the non-PV users have the system at peak demand make the power company buy more natural gas generators that may only be used one time every two years just to give the PV gird customers power.
Remember, at least 80% of your bill is the capital cost, not the fuel, so fact the PV can save a little fuel on sunny days does not compensate for the capital cost they add.
Grid PV users are "free loading" on the regular users and that "virtual battery" subsidy will end when they add significantly to the non-PV customers bill.
Last edited by Billy T; 03-08-11 at 08:48 PM.
03-08-11, 08:33 PM #1451
Also if price is the main consideration, there is a very rugged iron battery that is cheap and almost impossible the damage. (50+ year life, unlimited cycles, etc.) Some studies show it should be in the basement of homes that have time-of-day price for their power. - Run home on battery, which charges only at lowest power rate. this BTW, unlike grid PV customer, makes the demand curve more nearly flat and save greatly on the capital cost - the power company could probably make them more cheaply than the new plant needed without them "peak shaving."
Last edited by Billy T; 03-08-11 at 08:56 PM.
03-08-11, 10:14 PM #1452
03-09-11, 12:00 AM #1453
That link is using OLD data and it is referring to an OFF GRID system
First major problem is the cost of the panels, they are roughly four times as high as panels cost today.
As determined from a survey of current market prices, it costs about $600 to purchase and install a 75 watt panel. Therefore, the upfront cost of the solar panels per watt are Costpanels = $600/75 watts = $8/watt
Closest I could find to the current market prices for a 75 watt panel (which hardly anyone uses such small panels anymore, by the way) is $157 for an 85 watt panel, or $1.68 per watt. The system I configured used 210 watt panels, also priced at $1.68 per watt.
Secondly, that system only provided a peak load of 1,000 watts and that is useless, the system I configured provided up to 6000 watts from the system and power for loads over that came from the grid.
Third, instead of the cost of batteries $1,000 up front, $4,000 life cycle which in your example is nearly half the price of the system, the Grid Tie system I configured uses a low cost disconnect (~$200) to allow tying into the grid. Thus when you have more power than you need you spin your meter backwards and the grid effectively is your battery. This avoidance of the use of lead acid batteries in the system drastically lowers your cost per kWh.
The system I configured, if installed in Southern California would (with the Fed tax credit) pay for itself from day 1. Other locations in the SW, where electricity is still cheaper than Californin, would take longer to break even but would still save you many thousands of dollars over the life of the system.
Last edited by adoucette; 03-09-11 at 12:12 AM.
03-09-11, 12:19 AM #1454
Even one peak during the year when it is night or the sky is cloudy shoots this win-win down.
>Remember, at least 80% of your bill is the capital cost, not the fuel, so fact
>the PV can save a little fuel on sunny days does not compensate for the
>capital cost they add.
They also save on distribution costs. An SDG+E RE inspector was here a while back, and while looking at our system made the comment "I wish more people would put in systems like these - we wouldn't have to be putting in things like the Sunrise Powerlink" (a much-protested transmission line going in through the desert here.)
So lower fuel costs, lower infrastructure costs - sounds again like a win-win (unless you're in the business of installing transmission lines I suppose.)
>Grid PV users are "free loading" on the regular users . . .
And regular users are "free loading" on PV users when they get the energy the PV producer generated - and is giving away for free. I called that a win-win, but I guess if you're less optimistic you could call it a win (me) win (neighbor) lose (transmission line construction companies.)
03-09-11, 12:44 AM #1455
PV only produces power when the sun shines so it has its limits. It will be many many years before PV produces even a few percent of our power.
At least you are aware that grid PV is competitive for a few users because of the 30% subsidy,
but seem unaware of the greater "hidden subsidy" these few grid connected PV users enjoy from their non-PV neighbors who are paying for the capital cost of the grid PV's virtual battery, which is so large it can fill in for a week of cloud cover days. See post 1440 for more details.
I'm totally aware of that and I mentioned using the grid as a virtual battery a number of times. And since we are nowhere near the problems you mention in your normally pessimistic way, there is plenty of time for PV users to install systems and reap the benefits.
By the time the volume of PV gets to the levels that it is even a concern to the grid, the costs of the systems will likely have completely changed so projections about what will happen in the distant future are pointless.
Besides, even now a great deal of the cost of an electrical system is paying off the huge up front capital costs of new baseload plants, and what PV users do is to delay the need for that and thus lower the costs to the power companies. As far as peak loads go, no they are not that big of an issue either, not with modern interconnects between systems and the fact that power companies use relatively low cost NG systems for these peaks (higher fuel costs but much lower capital costs)
03-09-11, 02:49 AM #1456
There are some seriously over-optimistic people talking about solar cells. I have been trying to find independent data on the net to support claims of $ 1-00 per watt. Without success.
Figures I have come up with are way larger. $ 3-70 per watt in this 2009 article.
Enthusiasts getting carried away.
03-09-11, 03:32 AM #1457
Your report is on the AVERAGE costs and for several years ago and the prices of panels have come down, and since small systems which cost more per watt to install are much more common then large systems that makes the cost per Watt go up.
Which is why I configured a LARGE system, one that took advantage of buying a complete pallet of panels and configuring the system to use 90% of the wattage the inverter could handle and used fixed aluminum mounting rails which are easy to install on any flat surface.
I also did not include a large installation charge, I allowed $1,609 (10%) for required permits and hook up by an electrician of the key components that connect you to the grid and your house, but assumed that you would do the physical installation of the panels yourself. If not, you need to probably add several thousand more to the cost, but you are still going to be saving money.
Indeed, here is a complete system, very similar in capacity to the one I configured and for essentially the same price.
So no, we are NOT talking enthusiest prices.
03-09-11, 06:06 AM #1458
If ALL the subsidies were removed, then PV can rarely compete with grid power. That is the point I was making. It is not "pessimistic" to point out the facts or to want an honest cost accounting. You need to stop with these unfounded personal attacks. Most grid-PV advocates, like you in your analysis, don't ever include the cost others are paying for the grid-PV user's storage system and then conclude grid-PV is economical. It is; but only because they are free loaders on those paying for their storage system.
I do agree that grid-PV can expand several times still before the cost of these "free loaders" to individual non-PV customers of the power company becomes high enough for them to revolt and demand that there be a separated charge for the connection, even if it is not used.
For example if your house has 100Amp connection you pay half the fixed capital cost charge of someone with a 200Amp connection. That would be a fair an honest accounting, but make grid-PV less attractive. I.e. the total capital in the allowed rate base divided by the total amps of all connections is the "connection charge" (per connected service amp) which you pay, even if you never use a single KWH. Then you also pay for the energy you used, which could be negative for the grid PV customer if he has run the meter backwards more than forward.
I don't like subsidies, hidden or open. I want systems evaluated honestly on their merits. You can and should recognize the PV energy does not release CO2, so the analysis should include a "carbon credit" for the grid-PV customer - I.e. when running the meter backwards he reduces the CO2 release by coal fired generation etc, but not for the fraction of the electric company’s energy production that is for example, hydro or nuclear, etc.
BTW, many older and fuel inefficient plants are still "on line" and mainly used as quasi peaking units (Must be an anticipated peak as unlike NG turbine, it takes time to get the steam up) to avoid having them drop out of the capital rate base.
It is precisely these peak loads that make up the capital requirements that make up >80% of your electric bill. Electric bills are a "big issue" for many and will become more so, when they realize they are paying for "free loaders."
Last edited by Billy T; 03-09-11 at 07:12 AM.
03-09-11, 06:29 AM #1459
03-09-11, 06:47 AM #1460
i am hearing it from my childhood that they are on the roads , they are on the roads . But never happen to see one . Where are they ?
By Avatar in forum Art & CultureLast Post: 10-12-08, 02:18 AMReplies: 30
By Dinosaur in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 07-30-08, 03:40 PMReplies: 35
By draqon in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 07-22-08, 06:56 AMReplies: 7
By (Q) in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 01-19-07, 12:29 AMReplies: 16