The Solar Revolution!

[Smurf1976]

How much would it have cost to pay 100% of the price of supplying, installing and grid connecting individual 3MW solar power panel kits for each and every building in the town. Assuming 2 pp home & approx. $40,000 per kit all up, (see ref http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...ome+solar+power+kits&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au ) that would be a snip at a mere $2Million - a saving of $2.5 Million!!

Not only that, but such systems would feed back a significant oversupply of solar generated power (most homes would need only around 2.0-2.5 MW of power per day) into the grid to benefit whoever (as well as providing much-needed money in the pockets of the townspeople to SPEND - a laudable cause atm eh, Mr Rudd?).

Based on the diesel they are saving, the average output of the system they have installed is about 40kW. Depending on what assumptions you make about sunshine hours, you'll need roughly 80 x 3kW roof mounted systems to do the same job at a cost of around $2.4 million.

HOWEVER by their very nature these systems will supply far more energy than that during the day and none at night, their operation depends on the grid and centralised generation remaining the major source of supply. So cheaper, but less energy produced on average since much of it will be wasted unless a storage system (eg batteries) is also built. And if you build that then factor in the maintenance costs it doesn't look so attractive financially.

I don't have all the technical details of the system they have installed other than the my calculations on output. But from the photos it looks like it's thermally based and presumably includes some sort of storage (?). If that's the case then it's going to work a lot more effectively, for more hours in the day, than PV panels on roofs.

As for the average output, you could get the same gross output from wind at about $25,000 - $30,000 per year which makes solar look rather expensive. That wouldn't give you 100% renewable energy though, diesel would still be around two thirds of the total, but if you add in a vanadium redox battery and a pumped storage scheme then you can have 100%. And if done on a large scale to feed a major grid that's a lot cheaper than solar.

As for my comment about it being only a part of the town's energy use... It supplies their business and household electricity. But it doesn't supply transport fuel. It doesn't contribute to the energy used to smelt the aluminium used to make the cans the local pub sells. It doesn't run the aircraft the PM and others flew in. It doesn't supply the very substantial amounts of energy used to build it in the first place. Households only use about 11% of total energy consumed so whilst it's not a bad thing to be supplying that from solar, it's by no means a solution to the overall energy / emissions situation.

So my point is just that you would be wrong to think OK, let's just scale this up, build one in every town, and the whole country will be off fossil fuels forever. No it won't - it will save a few % and no more. A nice idea and I'd be 100% for it if it can be made as productive as other renewable energy sources. But it's no magic bullet to the overall situation and neither is anything else at this stage - that's the problem.

As for the other comments about the cost of running a solar HWS, I'd simply observe that many of the commercially available systems impose some pretty nasty load profiles on the grid and this ramps up both cost and emissions from electricity generation. Those costs are, via the tariff structure, largely passed back to consumers.

I've done rather a lot of research into solar HWS and basically I'd say that it's anything but straight forward which is the best way to go and it's not a "one size fits all" situation at all. What works well in one situation will be an outright dud in another. Anyone who wants to get into the detail - perhaps we should start another thread for solar HWS?

 

[Lantern]

Solar has plenty of potential.


Let’s Solar Power The World. 8/01/2007



I have just read an article in the latest copy of ReFocus, the official magazine of ISES (the International Solar Energy Society). The article was called “Solar can provide ALL of Europe’s electricity. It was based around a report commissioned by the German Environment and Nuclear Safety Ministry.

In this report it was claimed that by placing solar collectors in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, Europe could receive all it’s energy requirements from the sun.

“Every year, each square kilometer of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil.” Says Franz Trieb the study manager. “Multiplying the area of the worlds deserts worldwide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.”

The report also states “The cost to collect solar thermal energy is equivalent to $50 per barrel of oil now, which is less that the current world price” and speculates this cost will drop to $20 in the future.

It also states. The existing grid is not capable of transmitting large amounts of power over long distances, and a combination of conventional AC grid and high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission technology would be used in a trans-European electricity scheme. HVDC lines lose only 3% of power for every 1000 Klm of distance and solar electricity could be imported with only 10% loss compared to the 50% to 70% in conventional coal fired power stations.

The Uranium can stay in the ground.

 

[Smurf1976]

It also states. The existing grid is not capable of transmitting large amounts of power over long distances, and a combination of conventional AC grid and high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission technology would be used in a trans-European electricity scheme.

As I've said many times in these various energy threads, if we want an actual replacement for fossil fuels / nuclear then think large scale and the grid, not small scale and batteries.

Technically no reason for it not to work although I must point out that electricity produced from $50 oil isn't competitive in the international market (hence most oil-fired power stations have either been converted to something else, dismantled, used only for back-up or are in some place with expensive electricity and no electricity-intensive industry).

 

[Julia]

My thoughts would be that all new homes must have solar hot water.

And all existing homes sold must have it installed before sale.

And how would this be achieved if all the north facing roof already is covered with solar tubing for pool heating?

I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. Fair enough for new homes, though Lancelot's post would give cause for concern.

 

[knocker]

I just read the Krudd governement is phasing out the 8K rebate next year. This is typical of this pathetic whimp. and yet he gives more money to first home owners. What next:
The scheme was great and encouraged people to use the solar energy.

 

[Buddy]

I just read the Krudd governement is phasing out the 8K rebate next year. This is typical of this pathetic whimp. and yet he gives more money to first home owners. What next:
The scheme was great and encouraged people to use the solar energy.

knock, knock, it's all about wealth redistribution. The socialists don’t care about anything but the social agendas which lead to their gerrymander on eternal political power. Dumb down the population, make the dumbasses population permanently dependant on government handouts, take from the "so called rich" and redistribute to the poor. Proof? Try this for starters:

1) Have you noticed the handout pay scales for the poor, coming from the ETS TAX? And have you noticed the department putting out the publication? Not the environment department, or industry type department but Centrelink! What a scam! This stuff has nothing to do with the environment or saving the whales or trees, or anything so altruistic. I'm not even sure the socialists believe in GHW or climate change, to the extent that they are pure hypocrites. It is just part of their wealth redistribution plan and dumbing down plot.

2) Likewise with the solar rebate. OK it may not be the overall best bang for buck type scheme, to create efficient solar power alternatives but at least it focused individuals on what they could possibly achieve in their own simple way. But, surprise, surprise, k747 and his socialist band of thieves have decided that only the poor can be true of mind and spirit and only they should get the dosh! Stupid stupid people.

Bah, humbug! You voted for this lot. I didn't. But looks like I am going to have to pay for your gullibility!

 

[Smurf1976]

And how would this be achieved if all the north facing roof already is covered with solar tubing for pool heating?

I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. Fair enough for new homes, though Lancelot's post would give cause for concern.

Which is the most efficient system depends on a lot of factors. Solar certainly isn't for every situation.

In terms of what is actually available for consumers to buy, solar with electric boost, heat pumps and ordinary (non-solar) gas water heaters are all of comparable efficiency in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart etc. Only if you're well up north does solar become a clear winner there.

Solar with gas boost is more efficient than any of the above however. But economically it tends to be a bit of a flop due to the high upfront costs versus the relatively low running cost of gas in the first place. It's very efficient in a technical sense, problem is the cost.

Looking at my own situation, the heat pump would be a winner economically and environmentally. It's also a lot more practical for me to install than solar would be (roof space) so it's what I'll do if / when the existing water heater wears out. Every situation is different though - for some people solar really is the way to go.

As for the "when the house is sold" idea, I'm not keen on that at all. It's an incredible waste of materials to be throwing out perfectly functional water heaters and it wouldn't achieve a much faster uptake compared to the alternative of requiring the switch to occur when the water heater is replaced. I'd also point out that with the carbon trading system we're headed for, all this expense and potential waste of metals won't save any CO2 at all as previously explained.

 

[Dukey]

knock, knock, it's all about wealth redistribution. The socialists don’t care about anything but the social agendas which lead to their gerrymander on eternal political power. Dumb down the population, make the dumbasses population permanently dependant on government handouts, take from the "so called rich" and redistribute to the poor. Proof? Try this for starters:

1) Have you noticed the handout pay scales for the poor, coming from the ETS TAX? And have you noticed the department putting out the publication? Not the environment department, or industry type department but Centrelink! What a scam! This stuff has nothing to do with the environment or saving the whales or trees, or anything so altruistic. I'm not even sure the socialists believe in GHW or climate change, to the extent that they are pure hypocrites. It is just part of their wealth redistribution plan and dumbing down plot.

2) Likewise with the solar rebate. OK it may not be the overall best bang for buck type scheme, to create efficient solar power alternatives but at least it focused individuals on what they could possibly achieve in their own simple way. But, surprise, surprise, k747 and his socialist band of thieves have decided that only the poor can be true of mind and spirit and only they should get the dosh! Stupid stupid people.

Bah, humbug! You voted for this lot. I didn't. But looks like I am going to have to pay for your gullibility!

Ha - nothing funnier than a sore loser... a year on !!
... Geez Buddy - how do you sleep at night with all those reds plotting away under your bed? Better fly out to some fascist dictatorship where you'll be safe!

 

[Buddy]

Ha - nothing funnier than a sore loser... a year on !!
... Geez Buddy - how do you sleep at night with all those reds plotting away under your bed? Better fly out to some fascist dictatorship where you'll be safe!

Ha, Ha, Ha! OK Duke, I'll take up the cudgel on this one. Never really thought of myself being a sore loser. Apparently, according to you, if I don't like this government and prefer the other side then I am a reds under the bed, fear mongering, fascist loving somthing or other. How quaint!

The point is simply that these "reds" (your word not mine) have no credibility in doing anything about climate change or the solar revolution other than have talkfests, blah blah blah. Cant you see that this mob is simply using all the blah blah blah as a means to create another tax, fulfill their social agenda and tax the living daylights out of everyone, whilst giving huge bribes to their constituent voters. The ETS TAX will achieve absoutley nothing other that wealth redistribution and employment for some more fat cats and hangers on in Canberra. Plus the ultimate destruction of industry in Australia.

The solar revolution will never happen under a mob like this.

And, by the way, I sleep fine. Especially after a couple on bottles of fine wine.

 

[Buddy]

Now Smurf, you obviously are very knowledgeable with regards the power industry etc. So have you seen the proposal that is floating around, for large scale tidal power generation in the Kimberly (using relatively non intrusive vertical turbines), linked to an AC/DC/AC transmission line down to Roxeby Downs, then possibly to the Eastern States, and SW Western Australia. The proposal is to link is with other base loads stations (could be coal or even large scale solar) on the grid. And it could even be used to smooth the load profile using pumped storage in the Snowy mountains.

The latest proposal is different to previous scheme that relied on tidal dams and conventional turbines. The technology uses vertical turbines, with no dams (can use what's known as a "tidal fence"), and has minimal environmental impact compared to previous schemes. Somthing similar to the Canadian Blue Energy company (www.bluenergy.com). And, no I dont work for them.

I know there are lots of people around who have politicised this scheme and those that slag it with their vitriol. But I am interested in your view on this scheme. It seems to me that there in no one single solution to Australia's future power requirements. Other than the fact that the solution will be driven by new technologies. I would suggest that the solution will require multiple techological solutions spread all over Australia and linked with a HVDC transmission grid. And the solution will require very, very large expenditure that will be a combination of private funded schemes with a backbone of government funded infrastructure. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Similarly there is no such thing as free energy (yet, anyway), so the solution will untimately require government leadership. Perhaps the Kimberly tidal power scheme, in association with other large scale (perhaps/probably solar) generating schemes is a start.