- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Too much at this time but great innovation for he future.
hum I thought then did some raw figures (no gov rebate):
2 powerwall->11k
then 2x4kw system->10k
add a controller for powerwall and install yes not far from 30k but that would cover the need of a pretty goodhousehold
total 24k so not too far from your figures
in Brisbane area, on a year average my 4.5+kw system generates 5400kWh
so two 4kW systems should generate around 9.6kwh per day
plenty enough for standard household who cares a bit
on the grid, you pay:
qld agl:$1 +$2.8= around $4 per day
the system would repay itself after:24k/4=$6000 day or roughly 16y
and if you include interest,not very positive.but this is wo subsidies,
so we are nearly there
Tesla’s Powerwall is a great concept ”” with the potential to reduce electricity costs, tie in with solar and create a smarter, distributed power grid. But how long will it take to actually save you money?
Buying a Powerwall and inverter, as well as having it installed is estimated at $7340 US by SolarCity, or about $9300 AU at current exchange rates. It’s likely that it will be slightly more expensive here, due to shipping costs as well as increases install costs for our smaller user base. A cost of $10,000 AU installed is a good starting point.
The daily use Powerwall is rated at 7kWh. The round trip battery efficiency is 92%, and a good inverter can be 95% efficient. A good (if slightly optimistic) starting point is to figure we need to use about 7.5 kWh to charge the Powerwall, and will get about 6.5 kWh back out.
Too much at this time but great innovation for he future.
These batteries may well store 7 or 10 kWh, but here's a far more durable (should last a century) and very proven scheme to store 1,650,000 kWh.
http://www.genexpower.com.au/projects/The_Kidston_Project
It's not massive but 330 MW is certainly significant - most gas-fired power stations are of a similar scale magnitude. If built, it will be the fourth pumped storage scheme in Australia (there's currently 2 in NSW and 1 in Qld) and will be the third largest of that lot. So it's significant but not over the top.
In practical operation, it will help displace generation from high cost fuels (gas, oil) and enable a greater proportion of the total load to be met from coal and intermittent sources such as solar, wind etc.
It also adds firm peak generating capacity to the system (330MW) even though it doesn't produce energy as such.
where did you get the 7y figure, from memory warranty on offer was >10YEspecially if the batteries only last 7 years.
But the media hype, was a sugar fix, for a couple of days.
Have I lost something there???Says a lot when a producer targets Australia because we are stupid enough to be paying way above the field for something we already own (or did own)
where can I find an industrial user in Australia in 2015???
Industrial load is now going up again here in Tas. Nothing major, but Bell Bay Aluminium seems to have survived and will be taking another 33MW baseload on top of what it already uses. That's not huge, but it beats them going bust and there are plans for a further expansion down the track. Present load is 322MW (24/7/365). The other big 3 electricity users, that is TEMCO, Norske Skog (Boyer) and Nyrstar ("the zinc works") are still running flat out too.
Back to the generation side, the situation right at this moment illustrates the problem with wind and solar pretty well.
Total load in the NEM (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) is 29,506 MW. That's not an extreme but it's reasonably high.
Wind and solar aren't doing much however, producing just 210 MW or 0.7% which is well below their average contribution. Demand is up, wind and solar are down - that's the issue.
So where's the power coming from?
Coal = 20,614 MW (40% of that in NSW, 29% in Vic, 28% in Qld, 3% in SA).
Gas = 4,387 MW (35% of that in Qld, 25% in NSW, 24% in SA, 17% in Vic).
Hydro = 4,164 MW (47% of that in Tas, 24% in Vic, 23% in NSW, 6% in Qld).
Figures don't add to 100% due to rounding to the nearest whole %.
As for pumped storage, that's included in the hydro total but there's 494 MW from Tumut 3 (Snowy), 203 MW from Shoalhaven (NSW) and 181 MW from Wivenhoe (Qld) in the system at the moment. Tumut 3 is both a conventional hydro plant and a pumped storage scheme - that is, it contributes net energy and has a net flow of water through it in addition to pumped operation. The others are pumped storage as such.
So of 30,000 MW demand, solar and wind is supplying 210 MW.
It kind of highlights, how far we have to go, with renewables.
They could go a lot further if they had the financing of the coal industry
Even then ?I'm all for renewable energy but, apart from hydro, it needs some means of external storage in order to be available when it's needed. 6 degrees outside right now and going down to 1 tonight in Hobart - just as well we've got all those hydro turbines to keep the heaters running otherwise it would be rather uncomfortable to say the least waiting for the sun to come up tomorrow morning.
They could go a lot further if they had the financing of the coal industry
So, on those figures they are contributing 1%, yet everyone says solar is costing everyone too much.
How much are you prepared to pay for electricity? before you realise it costs too much.
With current technology, it is all B.S, there isn't any viable alternative to fossil fuels, other than nuclear.
Just because you close your eyes real tight and wish, doesn't make it happen.
So, on those figures they are contributing 1%, yet everyone says solar is costing everyone too much.
How much are you prepared to pay for electricity? before you realise it costs too much.
With current technology, it is all B.S, there isn't any viable alternative to fossil fuels, other than nuclear.
Just because you close your eyes real tight and wish, doesn't make it happen.
Yet, guess what they actually ended up doing for estimating the fair value Ergon should pay for solar generation ... they decided to just use the average level of losses avoided in the East Zone! (Which currently stands at 12.3%.)
It turns out that while power utilities are saying in public that solar PV hurts the poor who don’t have solar systems, some power companies were telling ACIL Allen and the QCA something quite different in an attempt to persuade them to inflate the power price retailers are allowed to charge households.
The Energy Retailers Association of Australia (which represents major power retailers such as Ergon, AGL, Alinta, Origin and EnergyAustralia) is quoted by ACIL Allen stating it didn’t want the regulator to use actual wholesale market outcomes in Queensland because, according to ERAA, wholesale power prices were being artificially and temporarily reduced by the addition of solar PV.
In the end ACIL Allen’s own analysis found it was correct that solar PV was reducing wholesale power costs during the daytime period (but didn’t fall for their ploy this was temporary and should be ignored in setting regulated retail power prices). In addition, it also noted:
The increase in solar PV installs in Energex (and Ergon) has contributed to a lower price volatility during the day time.
Mainly dealing with QLD, but helps to show solar is a net beneft to the system.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l&utm_content=1390524&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=
View attachment 62863
As you can see some customers see half the electricity shipped to them lost in the transmission wires. Solar panels don't have the same issue
That's a decent subsidy to Ergon as any solar generation in the high loss zones helps to save up to a 50% via transmission ie 1kWh of solar is the equivalent of 2kWh shipped from the generator.
As for nuclear being a viable alternative, care to put some evidence to that claim.
As Smurph pointed out, on an overcast day with minimum and or excessive wind, solar and winf generation are virtually useless. Consumers still want electricity 24/7, as yet we haven't the technology to supply it reliably with wind/solar.
I do have solar installed.
Fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear, are the only energy sources we have available, that can supply base laod generation.
The cost difference between them is irrelevant, if fuel supplies, political decisions or climatic considerations dictate one energy source over another.
Our society demands reliable electricity, if nuclear is the only fuel available or it is the fuel of choice, it would be used regardless of increased cost.
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?