Nyden
G.E. Money Genie
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,368
- Reactions
- 1
Thought I would pose a few questions here; in the hopes that a few of you may have experience in this area.
Does anyone here have any Wind turbines, or solar panels installed on their property? If so, how beneficial / practical are they? One would assume that they would pay themselves off eventually, but surely after that time they would be nearing their end anyway? Mechanical vaults?
Can they be used as a means of passive income? A home-based little wind-farm, selling back to the grid?
With ever-increasing costs, & no real sight of a sudden decrease in energy costs ... just seems to make sense for individuals to start looking for their own little alternative means.
Thank you in advance for any responses!
If you want to save money and uses alternative energies.
Convert your car to LPG, and convert your hotwater to solar.
these two things can reduce your energy bill by up to 40% and pay for themselves is about 2.5years.
Forget solar cells,
Agreed with what others have said.
44c per kWh I hear? That's about 7 times what one Australian company is actually achieving with wind and the estimates (unproven at this stage) for solar thermal and geothermal are similar.
I'd argue that if electricity generally cost 44c / kWh then demand would disappear almost immediately.
the 44c that they are about to pay is actual legislated - take from the grid at 22c, back to the grid at 44c
the point I was making is that it is a con because for the reasons stated (frig and other base load) it will be extremely unlikely that people will be able to pump their surplus back into the grid because they cannot use all grid power and pay the stipulated 22c and produce 2kw/hr peak on optimum day and get the legislated 44c - it just ain't gunna happen because you MUST use your own solar generated for your own purposes first. what it will do is reduce total SA electrical demand somewhat but at huge cost to the consumer for their capital outlay. if a private co tried to do it they would end up in gaol for fraud - same as lotto - govt does it so all OK
But even including hot water - my folks for example average about 15kWh per day (yep - they are old school tough- they rarely use air-cons... in townsville).
A 1000W system will probably produce something like that up here... most days... sunny Townsville
A 2000 W system should **** it in, and they would be feeding excess back to the grid and being payed for it.
nope - not even in towneysville - 1kw system is peak output optimum conditions - 12hrs sun = about 7-9kw/day
even a 2kw (remember that's peak again) system will barely do it - I think u would need a magnifying glass to read the numbers of what u put back into the grid with a 2kw system if your consumption was 15kw/day ave
My main point is simply that if we start putting significant amounts of energy into the grid at 44c / kWh then in short society ends up going broke. Clean and green maybe, but financially unworkable. The SA scheme only works if it doesn't become too popular and thus doesn't provide a real alternative to fossil fuels.the 44c that they are about to pay is actual legislated - take from the grid at 22c, back to the grid at 44c
the point I was making is that it is a con because for the reasons stated (frig and other base load) it will be extremely unlikely that people will be able to pump their surplus back into the grid because they cannot use all grid power and pay the stipulated 22c and produce 2kw/hr peak on optimum day and get the legislated 44c - it just ain't gunna happen because you MUST use your own solar generated for your own purposes first. what it will do is reduce total SA electrical demand somewhat but at huge cost to the consumer for their capital outlay. if a private co tried to do it they would end up in gaol for fraud - same as lotto - govt does it so all OK
Society only has so much we can spend on power generation. I mean, it just doesn't work if we decide that we're all going to spend 90% of our income on power stations or energy efficiency.certainly less economic - though I still feel some of the other benefits are worth considering....
at some point we might have to stop thinking only with our hip pockets and take a leap into the future...?
It varies a lot with location but take 10% loss from power station to your house as a rough figure unless you're either right next to the power station or in the middle of nowhere. The actual figure will vary with location, time of day (and time of year in some situations) etc. A small number of individual consumers in rural areas do have very high losses but for most it's not as big as commonly assumed.## as far as transmission losses go - my understanding (& please correct me if I'm wrong) was that the greatest losses are in transporting elec. over large distances.
Society only has so much we can spend on power generation. I mean, it just doesn't work if we decide that we're all going to spend 90% of our income on power stations or energy efficiency.
So it makes sense to go for the biggest bang for our buck in terms of output, carbon reduction or whatever other criteria you choose.
Bottom line is this. Put $10,000 into solar on rooftops and it will save a small amount of CO2. Put that same $10,000 into geothermal, solar thermal, hydro, wind etc on a large scale and it will save an order of magnitude more CO2 than panels on the roof.
So if we want to save 5% and stop there then panels on the roof will do it. But the same money could save many times that if put into large scale centralised generation.
I'll use some figures for a large scale example. The Hydro's local operations (that is, Tasmania and excluding interstate and overseas) amount to an investment (replacement cost) of about $25,000 per head of population or over $55,000 per household. It costs little to keep going and there's no reason why most of it shouldn't still be in use 100 years from now (indeed one plant already is over 100 years old). It is financially viable and competitive with mainland and overseas coal-fired power.
If we had gone solar on house roofs instead of dams on rivers then that cost would be $150,000 per head of population or about $330,000 per household (which is more than the average house price in Tas). And we would have to replace the whole lot every 20 or so years. And those costs don't include some means of storage (batteries etc) that also requires frequent replacement. And as if that's not bad enough, solar panels are far higher CO2 emitting than hydro (or geothermal, solar thermal, wind) due to their embedded energy.
Now, I ask you this. Can you afford to be spending $16,500 each year replacing solar cells? Didn't think so. And that's without even mentioning the return on invested capital, which would be borrowed money in practice for most.
Don't forget that if it's going to be large enough to make a difference then everyone from your employer to the local supermarket will be factoring in a massive cost via reduced wages, higher prices etc. If you want an example of how this works, then consider what would happen if petrol, diesel etc went to $9.30 a litre, which is about the same cost as energy from rooftop solar panels. It wouldn't be pretty...
Panels on roofs work politically. But replacing trucks with trains, investing in large scale renewable generation, solar hot water and so on are far more effective at turning $ into CO2 reductions. You'd be better off giving your neighbour some insulation and a solar HWS than bothering with solar electricity yourself and it would save far more CO2.
A Quantum heat pump water heater will cost you about $1000 more than a conventional electric unit with the rebates that are available. Now there's something worth doing - pays for itself in a few years at most and saves rather a lot of CO2 as well. Even without the rebates it stacks up a lot better than generating your own power in a suburban area.
My main point is simply that if we start putting significant amounts of energy into the grid at 44c / kWh then in short society ends up going broke. Clean and green maybe, but financially unworkable. The SA scheme only works if it doesn't become too popular and thus doesn't provide a real alternative to fossil fuels.
It doesn't scale up whereas centralised geothermal, hydro, solar thermal etc do scale up and, combined, are a lot closer to being a real alternative. 6 - 7 cents / kWh is still problematic economically, quite seriously so in fact, but it's a lot better than 44 cents / kWh.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?