- Joined
- 29 September 2008
- Posts
- 113
- Reactions
- 0
You understand the limited study well. Provided the parameters of the comparison are set to show the BlueGen unit favorably this will be the case.
Change the parameters to something realistic, like both connected to the grid and feed power back into the grid. Plus add in spending $70,000 on each.
A 10kw system will cost less than $50,000. It will produce more electricity in Melbourne...
... than a BlueGen unit over the course of a year (at max power output).
BlueGen unit : 2kw x 24 hours x 365 days = 17,520 Kwh
10 kw Solar : 10 kw x 5.7 hours x 365 days = 20,790 Kwh
BlueGen will use 110,376 Mj of gas at a current cost of ~ $1545 per year. There is a fair amount of GHG being produced.
Solar will use no gas for the electricity produced, no GHG.
Fuel Cells will get cheaper in the future, so will solar panels.
Solar produces power when needed during peak consumption, especially in summer when Air conditioners are on. With the introduction of Smart meters, this is when costs will be highest and extra power needs to be generated.
No, just cold hard facts, and not necessarily those produced by a report by CSIRO. They will only produce the report that goes with the original parameters set in the contract to produce said report. Like I stated earlier, take a good look at the total picture.
If my numbers above are 'out' please show where they are wrong.
I am really disappointed in all aspects about this technology with this company. There is real potential for fuel cells running off-grid stand-alone systems for remote areas. The price people would pay per kw is much higher and everything else is very inconvenient. Yet they chose to go into competition with solar with a grid connected system.
Surely if you needed higher prices for the units, you would choose the market that could potentially bear the higher prices in the initial stages, while giving time to lower costs for the mass market.
brty
In most instances I will use my gut instincts, and they are telling me that i am right.
For one, solar is a done deal, been there done that, its not something likely to be revisited by governments, to get 50k worth of solar on roofs of working families.
something new and exciting made in victoria/australia more fits the bill.
History tells me if the government isnt going to push/market the switch to clean and green, Australian working families are not going to pay 50k for something.
So lets see.