The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

Re: Do you have solar panels?

if there's no more periods where electricity is selling for 10K a MWh and they have to make do with a ceiling price of < $100 it will make life very hard for them. A lot of assets will be worthless, especially gas peaking plant.

It'll hit the entire industry pretty hard, no question there.

Even for baseload plant, most of the time they are running in a price environment which covers marginal costs (eg fuel) but only just, making no return on the original investment. Basically the whole profit comes in just a few hours each year when the price goes through the roof.

I see a future where off-peak prices will have to rise, simply to keep the generators financially viable. If you're not going to have the occasional huge spike, then you can't run a viable business if you're selling in the 1 - 4 cents / kWh range most of the time and your costs are higher than that.

In terms of specific impacts:

Brown coal (and non-exportable black coal in Qld) = marginal costs are ridiculously low, well under 1 cent / kWh in most cases, so it's really a question of asset values and return on that investment. They won't rationally cease to operate due to that factor.

Black coal (exportable) = marginal costs are higher, but still lower than the spot price most of the time. Indeed it is the marginal cost of these plants which in practice often sets the price floor in the first place, since they're flexible enough in operation (can generally stay running down to about 30% of nameplate capacity) to cut output when price and demand drops.

Hydro = depends on the operator, noting that hydro in Australia is dominated by two companies (Hydro Tas and Snowy Hydro) plus a few plants owned by various others in Vic, NSW and Qld.

So far as Snowy is concerned, they are absolutely focused on peak loads - they've got about two thirds more peak capacity than Hydro Tas has, but with only half the average energy output. Snowy also has some pumped storage as such. I can't imagine the scheme ever being abandoned, but it could end up considerably less viable financially than it is at present if they end up having to sell their output as baseload generation.

For Hydro Tas it's somewhat different since HT was a baseload generator for the first 90 years of its' existence and doesn't actually have a single hydro generating set built to operate as peak generation (though there are 4 small open cycle gas turbines, but they're very much a sideline to the main activities and are usually idle). The hydro system can certainly produce peak power, no doubt about that, but fundamentally it's a baseload operation by design and under certain weather conditions loses a lot of efficiency in order to achieve maximum peak power output. The issue is thus a purely financial one and, since HT currently sells most of its' production either as baseload to heavy industry or to small consumers via its' offshoot retailer Momemtum, that impact won't kill the business. It won't help, but it won't be the end.

Wind = they can't control when they generate so it's the average price received that matters. How they get to that price is less of a concern - if peak prices drop and baseload prices rise then they'll be happy. If average prices fall then they'll be losing money on their original investment but the marginal costs are such that nobody would rationally cease operation until the turbines wear out.

Solar at utility scale is very minor in Australia, but it's the price received when they are generating (ie daytime) that matters. A drop in peak prices won't help them financially that's for sure.

Gas = pretty much game over for these guys. Already we've got Swanbank E (Qld) mothballed and Torrens Island A (SA) about to go the same way. Most of the rest are generating less as gas prices rise. There's also another plant being considered for dismantling and sale (likely overseas) as parts although that's still under consideration as such.

Oil = a minor fuel for grid generation in Australia at present, and would become even less relevant if peak prices flatten out. Qld is the only state that actually runs oil-fired generation with any regularity. There's some capacity in NSW and SA too although that's idle almost all the time, and it's a backup to gas at some (not all) plants in Vic and Tas though not generally used apart from test runs.

 

[SirRumpole]

In reference to the above posts by Smurf and Syd, doesn't it make it all the less reason to sell generating assets (if that is what is being planned) ?

There would have to be massive subsidies or massive price hikes offered to get any corporations interested I would have thought.

Government ownership that can smooth out the profits and losses over time without worrying about going out of business in the meantime would seem to be the best option, except that the politicians are too lazy to take the responsibility.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Do you have solar panels?

It would hurt leaking plants, but be good for the low cost baseload plants. Instead of having their plant maxed out and losing market share to peaking stations in peak times, and then sitting at 5% of capacity all night, they could just sit at 75% 24hours a day

Absolutely true in an engineering sense, load leveling has always been the goal for any sensible electricity supplier focused on the engineering side of it.

Finance is where it gets a bit more complex, since the peaks make the $. That's to the point that a certain fairly well known baseload plant, itself owned by a "household name" company, routinely cuts its own production when demand rises so as for force the price up. They sell two thirds as much volume at 10+ times the price = easy money. Needless to say, nobody else in the industry is complaining about them doing that either.

To be fair, there's more than one who does that, but there's one particular plant that's notorious for it.

PS - I take it that's peaking plants not leaking plants? Not good to have leaks in an oil-fired plant, even worse to have a big leak in a gas-fired one. And if you get a catastrophic leak in an underground hydro station, well, let's just hope that never happens because it won't be pretty if it does.....

 

[sptrawler]

W.A will be an interesting test bed, for private sector accountability, and how they manage their responsibilities.

There is a lot of installed capacity, that has taken free taxpayer money, for doing nothing.
When they are asked to stand up to the plate and deliver, it will be interesting to see what happens.

W.A doesn't have an extension cord to the other States, unlike the East coast.

 

[ghotib]

I had a good laugh with the below. Makes me thankful I've never had to own a car

http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/

Wonderful!! And so true. Thank you.

 

[qldfrog]

In reference to the above posts by Smurf and Syd, doesn't it make it all the less reason to sell generating assets (if that is what is being planned) ?

Indeed and the reason I am so angry at labor in qld whose campaign was based on "no sale of assets" and ended up with a victory;
That the electorate may not know or understand fair, but as a policy maker Labor here could have at least the wit to consider economic sense in their policies;
as the results of the election, qld will not sell any extra electricity or port assets: all assets currently at the peak of their price due to the world low level of rates, and which have a serious risk of becoming nearly worthless in the next decades

Newman was a tool but that policy at least made economical and fiscal sense

 

[Smurf1976]

One major problem with the ownership question is conflict of interest in policy making.

I have never, ever seen government first sell or outsource something and then implement policy which leaves the private owner or contractor effectively bankrupt, even when doing so is the rational course of action.

That tends to be true even if the private owner does a terrible job and there are plenty of examples. Railways in Tas come immediately to mind. Pacific National messed up big time, leaving the system in ruin to the point of being almost totally inoperable - couldn't run a train from one end of the state to the other even at walking pace without it coming off the tracks (and the locos and rolling stock were incredibly run down too). Government had no choice but to take back ownership, agreed there, but where they went terribly wrong was with the actual transaction. They actually paid PN for the assets!

As a taxpayer I'm not happy. They ought to have forced PN to either fix the system or at the very least hand the whole lot over at $0 if they really insisted on walking away. There was no reason to pay - it's not as though the assets were actually worth anything other than as scrap metal and PN weren't likely to go around physically ripping up the tracks to sell some rusty iron and rotten timber.

The private owner took the profits and the taxpayer footed the bill - that's how it works when these privatisations go wrong. Government never, ever sends business broke or even takes a hard line. The taxpayer retains the risk no matter who owns it when it comes to things like transport and energy infrastructure.

If the Qld government sells power stations and the network, then the big problem is that a future government will in practice end up with two choices. Either implement policies which keep them profitable or, if they actually do become obsolete, buy them back at what would likely be the replacement cost of building them in 2030 or whenever it happens. End result is that a private operator takes the profit now, with the taxpayer ultimately carrying the risk either via constrained future policy decisions or an outright bailout.

It's like in SA where they leased the electricity assets. One way or another, you can be pretty sure that those with the lease will either insist that they have some sort of right to keep collecting revenue from the grid, even if it did become obsolete, or will hand the whole thing back to government if they end up losing money. The taxpayers of SA still have the long term business risk, all that was privatised were the profits in the meantime.

Anyway, it's not all doom and gloom. It's not huge but it's publicly announced that we've got some more heavy industrial load signed up in Tas. Nothing major, just 33MW (but that's in addition to the 322MW the same factory already uses - that's a constant load 24/7/365). Manufacturing isn't completely stuffed in Australia it would seem and there's still a market for grid electricity down here at least.

 

[luutzu]

One major problem with the ownership question is conflict of interest in policy making.

I have never, ever seen government first sell or outsource something and then implement policy which leaves the private owner or contractor effectively bankrupt, even when doing so is the rational course of action.

That tends to be true even if the private owner does a terrible job and there are plenty of examples. Railways in Tas come immediately to mind. Pacific National messed up big time, leaving the system in ruin to the point of being almost totally inoperable - couldn't run a train from one end of the state to the other even at walking pace without it coming off the tracks (and the locos and rolling stock were incredibly run down too). Government had no choice but to take back ownership, agreed there, but where they went terribly wrong was with the actual transaction. They actually paid PN for the assets!

As a taxpayer I'm not happy. They ought to have forced PN to either fix the system or at the very least hand the whole lot over at $0 if they really insisted on walking away. There was no reason to pay - it's not as though the assets were actually worth anything other than as scrap metal and PN weren't likely to go around physically ripping up the tracks to sell some rusty iron and rotten timber.

The private owner took the profits and the taxpayer footed the bill - that's how it works when these privatisations go wrong. Government never, ever sends business broke or even takes a hard line. The taxpayer retains the risk no matter who owns it when it comes to things like transport and energy infrastructure.

If the Qld government sells power stations and the network, then the big problem is that a future government will in practice end up with two choices. Either implement policies which keep them profitable or, if they actually do become obsolete, buy them back at what would likely be the replacement cost of building them in 2030 or whenever it happens. End result is that a private operator takes the profit now, with the taxpayer ultimately carrying the risk either via constrained future policy decisions or an outright bailout.

It's like in SA where they leased the electricity assets. One way or another, you can be pretty sure that those with the lease will either insist that they have some sort of right to keep collecting revenue from the grid, even if it did become obsolete, or will hand the whole thing back to government if they end up losing money. The taxpayers of SA still have the long term business risk, all that was privatised were the profits in the meantime.

Anyway, it's not all doom and gloom. It's not huge but it's publicly announced that we've got some more heavy industrial load signed up in Tas. Nothing major, just 33MW (but that's in addition to the 322MW the same factory already uses - that's a constant load 24/7/365). Manufacturing isn't completely stuffed in Australia it would seem and there's still a market for grid electricity down here at least.

It's not so crazy if you're the politicians wanting re-election or cushy speaking fees and a seat on some board after retirement from politics at 50.

To be fair, even honest and public minded politicians couldn't do much but step in and save these utilities and infrastructures when they fail - privately owned or otherwise. They're too big to fail, and they know it.

Apparently it's quite easy to upset the public - most are too busy to do much, and those that do something either protests a while and that's pretty much it. Upset rich and powerful businesses and you're in a whole heap of trouble. So most won't bother.


Here's another conspiracy theory... I never really quite understand why the banks and the rich who runs the world wanted policies like those Austerity measures, low minimum wage etc. Aren't these just short term profit for them? Wouldn't they be richer if the masses could afford more of the goods and services?

I think they know that, but one... profit is good, short term or otherwise; two, if people are poor they're easier to control and influenced, easier to make tough bargains and no wage rises - double profit dips; and three, if the masses are poorer and the gov't can't raise enough tax revenue etc... they'd have to borrow - on favourable terms... and if it get bad enough, they'd be forced to sell major assets and infrastructures.

The poor have no money to buy (yea, through their superfund, right)... and so guess who controls and milk all those wonderful, vitally important assets the public had been funding all these decades?

You got to love the profit motive and corporations. They're literally a big, powerful, amoral living entity that care for nothing and nobody but making the most money in whatever way it can legally - and if not legally it'll weight the fines and costs and gov't inability to do much but step in and bail them out.

... and I'm making a career out of trying to own them. Moral decay man... haha

 

[qldfrog]

I see your point but it has a cost as well, we have billions in value which is going to go in smoke in the next decades, has a $ value now..well had,
and would have at the very least allowed the reduction of the current state debt in a state which has a gloomy mid term future;
still not convinced it is a great deal

 

[SirRumpole]

Smurf has concisely summarised the pitfalls of private ownership of public assets

If governments publicly disclosed all the details of contracts for sale or lease of assets instead of hiding behind "commercial in-confidence" excuses, I think the public would be far less welcoming of these deals, and they are not particularly welcoming as it is.

 

[qldfrog]

Smurf has concisely summarised the pitfalls of private ownership of public assets

If governments publicly disclosed all the details of contracts for sale or lease of assets instead of hiding behind "commercial in-confidence" excuses, I think the public would be far less welcoming of these deals, and they are not particularly welcoming as it is.

True, and should not have to be like that..and I ear the echo:
"Tell him he is dreaming..."

 

[Smurf1976]

I see your point but it has a cost as well, we have billions in value which is going to go in smoke in the next decades

So far as generation (power stations) are concerned, most of them have a finite life and quite a few are already getting rather old.

For a thermal (steam turbine) plant it's generally a case of becoming uneconomic rather than a hard technical limit as such. There's no technical reason why you can't just keep refurbishing a plant, but at some point two problems arise. Firstly, the scale of refurbishment required gets to the point of being effectively a complete rebuild apart from the basic structure of concrete, roof etc. Secondly, the plant's technology becomes obsolete such that a major refurbishment just doesn't stack up economically. So it ends up being a case of keep running the station until it needs major work, that is more than just routine maintenance, and then that's it, game over.

Lifespan of a power station depends on a lot of factors, it's not a hard rule that it will last x years. But a point does come where routine maintenance is no longer sufficient and major work is required. At that point it's a question of whether or not it's worth spending big $ to keep a 40 year old plant going or whether it's more sensible to scrap it.

For a gas turbine plant there are less opportunities for life extension, since major refurbishment basically means replacing pretty much everything that has any real value. That's due to the inherent simplicity of those plants when compared to steam, there's not much too them that isn't directly producing electricity so once it needs a major overhaul that's effectively a new plant anyway or close to it.

At the other end of the scale is hydro which, due to it's simplicity and very slow rotational speed (almost always below 500 RPM and often less than half that, versus a steam turbine screaming along at 3000 RPM) doesn't suffer a great deal of wear and tear. Also, there's a lot of money tied up in things which deteriorate very slowly - dams, canals etc. Hence we've got a 101 year old power station here in Tas that's still in baseload production, and a 77 year old one has been refurbished internally in recent times to keep it going for many years to come - it will almost certainly still be running (baseload) when it's 100.

The underlying point here is that the assets in Qld, which are predominantly steam and the rest mostly gas turbines, do have a finite life and quite a lot of the steam (coal) capacity does date from the 1970's and 80's. As such, it will in due course wear out and ought to be being depreciated toward that point thus avoiding any financial "shock" when the end does come.

A very recent announcement this week is closure of Anglesea power station, a 160MW (originally designed as 150MW) coal-fired plant in Victoria. It no longer serves its original purpose of supplying an industrial load (smelter) owned by the same company since the smelter is no longer operating. The power station could continue to just supply the grid, and that's what it is doing right now (and it's running at full output literally right now), but I'll take a guess (I don't have any inside info on it) that at 46 years old it probably needs some $ spent to continue operating. That's the decision point - spend the $ or close the plant and associated mine forever. It has an incredibly low marginal operating cost, it's the 4th cheapest non-hydro plant in the whole grid, bit with the low price of electricity the current owner has decided that it's not worth spending money on and their attempts to sell it to someone else have fallen flat too. So that's it, game over for Anglesea power station at the end of August this year.

So my point here is that coal and gas plants do eventually end up worthless at some point, there doesn't need to be a change in the way we generate electricity to bring that situation about. Looking back in history there have been plenty of closures in the past. Osborne, Playford A, East Perth, South Freemantle, Kwinana, Spencer St, Newport A, B and C, Yallourn A, B, C, D and E, Swanbank A and B, Pyrmont, White Bay, Bulimba, Tennyson, New Farm, Tallawarra, Stokes Hill, Munmorah and on it goes. They were all locally very important in their heyday and all still running within living memory but they're gone now, either completely demolished (most) with a few ending up with some other use of the buildings or with a completely new power station built on the site of the old. There's a casino where Pyrmont power station used to be (Sydney) and there's a sports stadium where Tennyson (Brisbane) once stood.

Going forward, it's inevitable that at some point Loy Yang, Hazelwood, Northern, Bayswater, Eraring, Gladstone, Tarong and all the others won't be generating electricity any more. At some point they will close, that's inevitable. It's only the hydro plants that have any chance of still being around a century from now (and then only if there's still a use for grid electricity).

So the threat of becoming obsolete shouldn't be a deterrent to either public or private ownership. They all end up closed anyway, and the same happens with virtually all capital equipment in any industry. How many offices are still using computers from the 1980's? How many warehouses are running 50+ year old forklifts? When's the last time you caught a bus with wooden floors and a petrol motor? And so on. Even your local fish and chip shop needs to replace their deep fryer at some point.

Back to the industry now, the real problem is a financial one. It's not viable to build new coal-fired capacity and it's not even viable to keep old plants running once a major overhaul is needed - Munmorah, Wallerawang, Swanbank, Redbank, Collinsville, Morwell, Playford B and now Anglesea have all closed or at least been mothballed in recent times. It's not viable to do new baseload gas either with the rising gas price, and we're not building enough renewables to fill the gap.

Keep this up and at some point there's one heck of a shock coming down the wires and that's a shock of the financial kind and/or outright blackouts. If there isn't generation at one end of the line, then you can't run your appliances at the other end.

Whilst demand has declined in recent times, that trend is now flattening out in NSW and Vic and demand is significantly rising in Qld and Tas driven by heavy industry. Only SA and WA, due to local economic factors, are likely to see any real load drops from this point on it seems and in WA that's far from certain (but it's at least plausible).

Photo: New turbine being installed in unit 3 at Tarraleah power station (Tas, hydro) in 2013. Photo by Smurf.

In layman's terms the turbine is the bright shiny metal part on the right hand side of the photo with two parts joined together. The part that produces the actual electricity, the alternator, is the big round thing on the left with a beige metal cover over it. If not for the work being done, there would be a similar cover over the turbine and also the pipes would be visible (removed to do the work).

For the technically inclined - 6 machines at Tarraleah, 15 MW each, with pelton turbines running at 428 RPM at 299m head and each discharging about 7000 litres / second at full output. Voltage at the alternators is 11kV, stepped up to 110kV for transmission.

The scale of production is small by modern standards but Tarraleah runs 24/7 and remains a locally important source of generation. It has been in operation since 1938.

 

[DB008]

Trina Solar launches residential battery, ahead of grid and commercial storage​

Chinese solar giant Trina Solar has quietly unveiled its first energy storage offering, with the launch of a small range of lithium-ion batteries targeted at the residential market.

The batteries, pictured below, come in three different sizes – 3.6kW, 5kW and 9.6kW – and are set to be released on the Australian market – among other select countries – in June, at an expected cost of around $US1200 per kWh.

Doug Smith, country manager for Trina’s Pacific region, said the company’s “soft launch” of the battery at the sidelines of the Australian Solar and Energy Storage conference in Melbourne this week, was not in response to the sensational arrival of Tesla’s Powerwall, but added that this had given the market a huge boost.

“Tesla’s certainly doing the world a favour here, for sure,” Smith told RenewEconomy in an interview. “They’ve done a great job in such a short amount of time.”

According to Smith, Trina – which recently claimed the title as world number one producer of crystalline PV modules – made the strategic decision to get into energy storage more than 18 months ago, forming a new division called Trina BEST (Battery Energy Storage by Trina).

It has been working on the batteries for 12 months now, says Smith, at a purpose-built in Jiangsu, near Shanghai.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/trina-solar-launches-residential-battery-ahead-of-grid-and-commercial-storage-31674​

 

[sptrawler]

Trina Solar launches residential battery, ahead of grid and commercial storage​

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/trina-solar-launches-residential-battery-ahead-of-grid-and-commercial-storage-31674​

The problem with lithium ion batteries, from my understanding, is they start dying as soon as they are produced.
From what I've read 5 - 7 years is their life expectancy, it may have improved.
If the life expectancy hasn't improved, the unit cost will have to drop considerably, to make them viable.IMO

 

[sptrawler]

So far as generation (power stations) are concerned, most of them have a finite life and quite a few are already getting rather old.

For a thermal (steam turbine) plant it's generally a case of becoming uneconomic rather than a hard technical limit as such. There's no technical reason why you can't just keep refurbishing a plant, but at some point two problems arise. Firstly, the scale of refurbishment required gets to the point of being effectively a complete rebuild apart from the basic structure of concrete, roof etc. Secondly, the plant's technology becomes obsolete such that a major refurbishment just doesn't stack up economically. So it ends up being a case of keep running the station until it needs major work, that is more than just routine maintenance, and then that's it, game over.

Lifespan of a power station depends on a lot of factors, it's not a hard rule that it will last x years. But a point does come where routine maintenance is no longer sufficient and major work is required. At that point it's a question of whether or not it's worth spending big $ to keep a 40 year old plant going or whether it's more sensible to scrap it.

I am a great supporter of the Government owning essential services.

However, as Smurph has pointed out, electricity is hugely capital intensive, both in repair and replacement.

It is cheap to produce with existing plant, but capital intensive to repair or replace.

Add to this, the rapid increase in electrical technology and appliance efficiency, and it is a dodgy business to be in.
Throw environmental and political uncertainty into the mix, and it is probably better to sell the asset before we make them worthless.

 

[Value Collector]

The problem with lithium ion batteries, from my understanding, is they start dying as soon as they are produced.
From what I've read 5 - 7 years is their life expectancy, it may have improved.
If the life expectancy hasn't improved, the unit cost will have to drop considerably, to make them viable.IMO

Modern lithium batteries, especially the highly engineered types can last much longer, but even 7 years is ok, did you know the average life of a car in Australia is 7 years?

But when people give life expectancy of batteries, it's normally based on a ratio of its effectiveness, eg, will have 80% of its capacity at 7 years, so it's actually life span may be much longer, you can always just buy another batteries and sit it beside it,

I was speaking to a solar installer, and he mentioned that when solar panels have a 20 year service life guarantee, he said they don't need replacing at the 20 year mark, they just lose 30% of effectiveness, you could just put a fresh set next to them and the old ones would easily continue for another 10 years

 

[sptrawler]

Modern lithium batteries, especially the highly engineered types can last much longer, but even 7 years is ok, did you know the average life of a car in Australia is 7 years?

But when people give life expectancy of batteries, it's normally based on a ratio of its effectiveness, eg, will have 80% of its capacity at 7 years, so it's actually life span may be much longer, you can always just buy another batteries and sit it beside it,

I was speaking to a solar installer, and he mentioned that when solar panels have a 20 year service life guarantee, he said they don't need replacing at the 20 year mark, they just lose 30% of effectiveness, you could just put a fresh set next to them and the old ones would easily continue for another 10 years

I think if you read up on lithium batteries, you will find they don't decline, they DIE.

This makes them quite different, from batteries we are accustomed to.

They perform extremely well until their demise, but their demise, is sharp, sudden and finite.

 

[Value Collector]

I think if you read up on lithium batteries, you will find they don't decline, they DIE.

This makes them quite different, from batteries we are accustomed to.

They perform extremely well until their demise, but their demise, is sharp, sudden and finite.

I am no battery expert, but the wiki page says that lithium batteries, suffer a loss of 30% after 1000 - 5000 cycles depending on how well they are made.

 

[sptrawler]

I am no battery expert, but the wiki page says that lithium batteries, suffer a loss of 30% after 1000 - 5000 cycles depending on how well they are made.

I think you are talking cycling loss, I'm talking calender loss.

Lithium batteries can be cycled very hard, without degradation, the chemical ageing process in the battery kills them. Well that is my limited understanding.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Battery_Power/Lithium_Ion_Batteries

A small qoute:

Disadvantages[edit]
A unique drawback of the Li-ion battery is that its life span is dependent upon aging from time of manufacturing (shelf life) regardless of whether it was charged, and not just on the number of charge/discharge cycles. This drawback is not widely publicized.

It is interesting reading, and probably explains Lithium batteries, fall on their ar$e overnight.lol

 

[Smurf1976]

but even 7 years is ok, did you know the average life of a car in Australia is 7 years?

The average age of cars on the road in Australia is about 10 years, which implies that the average lifespan of a vehicle is around 20 years.

One issue with lithium batteries is limited real world experience. There's a huge number of petrol engines, fridges and an household wiring in use (to pick random things that people have) and consumers generally know what to expect.

You don't need to be a mechanic to know that a car that has traveled 50,000 km should still be mechanically sound assuming normal use and servicing but that one that has traveled 200,000 km will likely need work done soon. Likewise we know that fridges last more than a decade, house wiring lasts longer than you're likely to own the house and so on. There's a lot of them and they've been around a long time so we know what to expect in practice.

The trouble with lithium batteries, and other new things such as solar inverters and LED lighting, is that all we really have is theoretical calculations and lab tests. The average consumer has no real idea what to expect and that means there's a risk involved.

I'll make an educated guess that solar inverters and LED's in particular are going to fall a long way short of what many are expecting. All those cheap solar inverters from China - how many of them are really going to go the distance? And those 30,000, 50,000 or even 100,000 hour claims on LED lights - are they really going to keep working for the next 30, 50 or 100 years in a typical household? And what happens when you've got 20 lights all the same, one breaks and you can't get a replacement that matches it? Electricians aren't about to be short on work...