Discussion:
To those who think solar panels match demand against load
(too old to reply)
Sylvia Else
2017-01-24 03:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-24 17:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.

BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Sylvia Else
2017-01-24 22:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
I'm in Australia, Sydney.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-25 16:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:38:43 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
I'm in Australia, Sydney.
Aha! That 'splains it... ;-)

Thanks.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Officer
2017-01-25 17:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.

At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.


I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.

The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.

My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity

Sylvia Else
2017-01-26 00:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.
At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.
I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.
The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.
My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.

The grid, and associated non-solar power stations, have to be sized to
meet the maximum demand. An argument offered in some quarters is that
solar panels reduce that maximum demand (in countries where maximum
demand occurs during summer heat-waves) because the maximum heat
corresponds to maximum insolation, and thus maximum solar power.

My situation on the day I posted showed that that is just not true.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-26 18:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:48:02 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.
At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.
I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.
The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.
My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies. And battery banks don't last forever, and are
expensive to replace. And "moving up the coast" isn't an
option, nor is maintaining a high-dollar RV.
Post by Sylvia Else
The grid, and associated non-solar power stations, have to be sized to
meet the maximum demand. An argument offered in some quarters is that
solar panels reduce that maximum demand (in countries where maximum
demand occurs during summer heat-waves) because the maximum heat
corresponds to maximum insolation, and thus maximum solar power.
My situation on the day I posted showed that that is just not true.
Here in the Phoenix area it generally *is* true that max
temperatures correspond to max insolation, but point taken.
It depends on the overall climate for each area.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Sylvia Else
2017-01-27 11:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-27 18:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.

The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)

All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Sylvia Else
2017-01-28 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.
The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)
All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
Yes, the calculations required to determine the best course can be
labyrinthine even if one knows all the underlying facts. I think in the
USA you can get some tax rebate relating to your mortgage interest
payments, which you'd lose to the extent that you're avoiding paying it.
We don't have that here, but we probably have more means-tested handouts
that increase the effective marginal tax rate imposed on any interest
that one earns (and without allowing for the effects of inflation on the
capital).

I suspect, though, that most people aren't even aware of the issue.

Sylvia.
Bob Casanova
2017-01-28 17:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:56:13 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.
The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)
All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
Yes, the calculations required to determine the best course can be
labyrinthine even if one knows all the underlying facts. I think in the
USA you can get some tax rebate relating to your mortgage interest
payments, which you'd lose to the extent that you're avoiding paying it.
We don't have that here, but we probably have more means-tested handouts
that increase the effective marginal tax rate imposed on any interest
that one earns (and without allowing for the effects of inflation on the
capital).
Yep. As I noted there are multiple issues and variables, but
the worst one from my perspective was the increase in tax
rate if I took a distribution sufficient to pay off my
mortgage.
Post by Sylvia Else
I suspect, though, that most people aren't even aware of the issue.
I suspect you are right.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Officer
2017-01-29 08:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.
The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)
All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
Yes, the calculations required to determine the best course can be
labyrinthine even if one knows all the underlying facts. I think in the
USA you can get some tax rebate relating to your mortgage interest
payments, which you'd lose to the extent that you're avoiding paying it.
We don't have that here, but we probably have more means-tested handouts
that increase the effective marginal tax rate imposed on any interest
that one earns (and without allowing for the effects of inflation on the
capital).
My house was fully paid for when I bought my solar panels. I got my
batteries at cost. I built most of the controlling electronics. My local
power company was surprised when I instructed a full disconnect. All my
extra power went to my batteries. Any extra power I need I generate myself.
In the summer we have average wind speed of 8 mph. Enough to spin my wind
turbines. The only time I would have to operate generators is after three
days of thick clouds. So far this year, I ran generators at home for 13
hours, burning 7.3 gallons of recycled (free) cooking oil. The RV here in
quartzite has had 4 hours burning ~ 1.5 gal diesel fuel. It was cloudy for
three days and not enough wind to run the wind turbines to keep the
batteries fully charged.
Post by Sylvia Else
I suspect, though, that most people aren't even aware of the issue.
California offered some nice tax incentives for buying solar panels. I took
full advantage of them.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
BruceS
2017-01-30 15:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.
The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)
All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
Yes, the calculations required to determine the best course can be
labyrinthine even if one knows all the underlying facts. I think in the
USA you can get some tax rebate relating to your mortgage interest
payments, which you'd lose to the extent that you're avoiding paying it.
We don't have that here, but we probably have more means-tested handouts
that increase the effective marginal tax rate imposed on any interest
that one earns (and without allowing for the effects of inflation on the
capital).
My house was fully paid for when I bought my solar panels. I got my
batteries at cost. I built most of the controlling electronics. My local
power company was surprised when I instructed a full disconnect. All my
extra power went to my batteries. Any extra power I need I generate myself.
In the summer we have average wind speed of 8 mph. Enough to spin my wind
turbines. The only time I would have to operate generators is after three
days of thick clouds. So far this year, I ran generators at home for 13
hours, burning 7.3 gallons of recycled (free) cooking oil.
Nice! When you can't get the power you need from wind and sun, you
turn a waste product into the energy you need? I don't think I'll ever
go the RV route, but I can certainly see adding the recycled oil to the
mix. If we build our retirement place, we'll be doing so with energy
independence in mind, and if we buy a place already built, we'll do
mods to help. Two big things I want are insulation and thermal mass,
which reduce the need for heating and cooling.
Post by Bob Officer
The RV here in
quartzite has had 4 hours burning ~ 1.5 gal diesel fuel. It was cloudy for
three days and not enough wind to run the wind turbines to keep the
batteries fully charged.
Post by Sylvia Else
I suspect, though, that most people aren't even aware of the issue.
California offered some nice tax incentives for buying solar panels. I took
full advantage of them.
Bob Officer
2017-01-31 04:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 22:29:30 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies.
Have your calculations included the interest you could have earned on
the money if you hadn't used it to buy your solar hardware? An even
larger amount needs to be included if you could have repaid some of your
mortgage, and avoided the interest on that.
You are of course correct, but with interest rates in the 1%
range it would be better to consider potential ROI on
equities. And no, I didn't specifically consider that as an
alternative, for the main reason that while ROI is an
unknown (even if investment history in equities shows a
long-term gain in the 8% range, there's no guarantee for any
particular decade) the cost of power isn't, and can be
expected to grow, making my investment in solar more
valuable over time.
The other thing I had to consider was the tax cost of
distributions from my 401k (since converted to an IRA),
which increases at the usual rate for income bracket creep;
if I'd wanted to pay off my mortgage (around $100k at the
time) the increase in tax rate for the (greatly) increased
distribution would have wiped out any gains (and more) from
the payoff, *and* would have removed those funds as income
producers from the equity investments which comprised a
large part of the 401k. The amount I had to pay
out-of-pocket for the installation, around $15k, was
financed at a rate of less than 5%, while the balance of the
cost was covered by a combination of direct subsidies and a
$10k Federal tax credit. (Note that this was in 2010, and I
may be misremembering some of the numbers.)
All in all the installation seemed the best use of my
available finances, but *only* if the subsidies and tax
credits were considered.
Yes, the calculations required to determine the best course can be
labyrinthine even if one knows all the underlying facts. I think in the
USA you can get some tax rebate relating to your mortgage interest
payments, which you'd lose to the extent that you're avoiding paying it.
We don't have that here, but we probably have more means-tested handouts
that increase the effective marginal tax rate imposed on any interest
that one earns (and without allowing for the effects of inflation on the
capital).
My house was fully paid for when I bought my solar panels. I got my
batteries at cost. I built most of the controlling electronics. My local
power company was surprised when I instructed a full disconnect. All my
extra power went to my batteries. Any extra power I need I generate myself.
In the summer we have average wind speed of 8 mph. Enough to spin my wind
turbines. The only time I would have to operate generators is after three
days of thick clouds. So far this year, I ran generators at home for 13
hours, burning 7.3 gallons of recycled (free) cooking oil.
Nice! When you can't get the power you need from wind and sun, you
turn a waste product into the energy you need? I don't think I'll ever
go the RV route, but I can certainly see adding the recycled oil to the
mix. If we build our retirement place, we'll be doing so with energy
independence in mind, and if we buy a place already built, we'll do
mods to help. Two big things I want are insulation and thermal mass,
which reduce the need for heating and cooling.
The house has double cinder block walls with a 4 in dead air space between
the inner and outer walls. The windows are triple pane with outside thermal
shutters.

If I build again I am thinking of a berm house with only one side partly
exposed. Not sure I want to do that much work again. As it is we only use
about 1/4 of the house most of it is unused since the kids left home 22 and
20 years ago. The youngest keeps threatening to move back, just to save up
some real cash and act a care taker while we are gone. It really would us
cost much for him to live there while we are gone I actually figured it out
once, the only Extra would be the water cost and since the house is off the
grid odds are the cost would be near zero.

I Need to design a smart pump controller which would prioritize the pump
usage and maybe a larger tank. Only run the pump during brightest light
period or windy days/nights. Hmmm good idea and I need to check the patent
office to see if it a "taken idea". I don't recall seeing anything like
that in the last few years.
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
The RV here in
quartzite has had 4 hours burning ~ 1.5 gal diesel fuel. It was cloudy for
three days and not enough wind to run the wind turbines to keep the
batteries fully charged.
Post by Sylvia Else
I suspect, though, that most people aren't even aware of the issue.
California offered some nice tax incentives for buying solar panels. I took
full advantage of them.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Bob Officer
2017-01-27 21:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:48:02 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.
At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.
I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.
The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.
My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies. And battery banks don't last forever, and are
expensive to replace. And "moving up the coast" isn't an
option, nor is maintaining a high-dollar RV.
The RV was not a high dollar model. It is a 16 year old model. I have put
in another 8 grand into it. Total spent was less than 18k total. Most it
was batteries and a new inverter. Here a travel "up the coast" is a 2 day
trip of 600 miles can drop the outside temps 20 degrees. The plan was not
to have to run a generator all the time, and at home to only have to
operate it rarely.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
The grid, and associated non-solar power stations, have to be sized to
meet the maximum demand. An argument offered in some quarters is that
solar panels reduce that maximum demand (in countries where maximum
demand occurs during summer heat-waves) because the maximum heat
corresponds to maximum insolation, and thus maximum solar power.
My situation on the day I posted showed that that is just not true.
Here in the Phoenix area it generally *is* true that max
temperatures correspond to max insolation, but point taken.
It depends on the overall climate for each area.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Bob Casanova
2017-01-28 17:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:48:02 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.
At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.
I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.
The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.
My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies. And battery banks don't last forever, and are
expensive to replace. And "moving up the coast" isn't an
option, nor is maintaining a high-dollar RV.
The RV was not a high dollar model. It is a 16 year old model. I have put
in another 8 grand into it. Total spent was less than 18k total.
IOW, about the same as my rooftop solar array cost me, but
unlike RV's such systems have essentially zero maintenance
costs; the cost is all in the initial installation.
Post by Bob Officer
Most it
was batteries and a new inverter. Here a travel "up the coast" is a 2 day
trip of 600 miles can drop the outside temps 20 degrees. The plan was not
to have to run a generator all the time, and at home to only have to
operate it rarely.
OK. I'd point out that for me, a 2-hour trip from Maricopa
to Payson, about 120 miles, yields the same 20-degree drop.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
The grid, and associated non-solar power stations, have to be sized to
meet the maximum demand. An argument offered in some quarters is that
solar panels reduce that maximum demand (in countries where maximum
demand occurs during summer heat-waves) because the maximum heat
corresponds to maximum insolation, and thus maximum solar power.
My situation on the day I posted showed that that is just not true.
Here in the Phoenix area it generally *is* true that max
temperatures correspond to max insolation, but point taken.
It depends on the overall climate for each area.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Bob Officer
2017-01-29 16:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:48:02 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:18:47 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Nor is mine; in fact, it's not running at all (high here in
the low 50s; overcast and spitting rain). And even in the
summer here near Phoenix the 7kW system on my roof could
only match one of my two AC units. It still helps, though,
and over the past 6+ years has *almost* paid for itself.
BTW, what's your general area? I didn't see those temps
anywhere in the US yesterday.
The solar charges my batteries, and is supplemented with six small wind
generators.
I have two gen sets. One 4kw and one 15kw.
At home,I have been off grid for 5 years. I know people that have been off
grid for 10.
I use about 100 gals of commercial diesel pre year, about 200 gals of
propane. Both gensets are duel fuel. I have a tank with about 500 gals of
used cooking oil which can be burned in either genset.
I pulled up the computer monitor for the power system and it reported
running the small genset to recharge the batteries. The only thing running
is the computer, remote base VHF and HF radios, freezers and the well pump
to water the plants on the porch. Even today with Scattered Clouds, the
solar panels charged the batteries enough not to have to kick on.
The RV is entirely self contained with nearly 35 feet of panels and
LiFePO4 batteries 10kw generator. I have the option of using up to three
wind generators for a total wind output of 1200 watts.
My RV's inverter can convert 12 volts to 50 amps at 120 volts. The most I
ever seem to use at one time is 30 amps unless it is so hot I run both AC
units, and then it is time to most up the coast.
There's no doubt that it is technically possible to become
self-sufficient by using solar panels, batteries, etc., but most people
don't do that, because it's too expensive. Typically, an owner of solar
panels will have just solar panels, and will draw power from the grid
when the solar panels are not providing enough power.
Yep. If I wanted to go completely "grid-free" my
grandchildren might see full amortization but I never would;
it's taken me almost 7 years to amortize around 80% of my
initial investment, and that's *with* the various tax
subsidies. And battery banks don't last forever, and are
expensive to replace. And "moving up the coast" isn't an
option, nor is maintaining a high-dollar RV.
The RV was not a high dollar model. It is a 16 year old model. I have put
in another 8 grand into it. Total spent was less than 18k total.
IOW, about the same as my rooftop solar array cost me, but
unlike RV's such systems have essentially zero maintenance
costs; the cost is all in the initial installation.
Post by Bob Officer
Most it
was batteries and a new inverter. Here a travel "up the coast" is a 2 day
trip of 600 miles can drop the outside temps 20 degrees. The plan was not
to have to run a generator all the time, and at home to only have to
operate it rarely.
OK. I'd point out that for me, a 2-hour trip from Maricopa
to Payson, about 120 miles, yields the same 20-degree drop.
Or Phoenix to just north of Wickenburg aka Congress or a few more in a few
cases or north to Flagstaff? Being able to move is a plus... and often has
big offsets for the cooling cost. I enjoy the lost coaster Northern
California, even with the summer fogs.
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Bob Casanova
Post by Sylvia Else
The grid, and associated non-solar power stations, have to be sized to
meet the maximum demand. An argument offered in some quarters is that
solar panels reduce that maximum demand (in countries where maximum
demand occurs during summer heat-waves) because the maximum heat
corresponds to maximum insolation, and thus maximum solar power.
My situation on the day I posted showed that that is just not true.
Here in the Phoenix area it generally *is* true that max
temperatures correspond to max insolation, but point taken.
It depends on the overall climate for each area.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Sylvia Else
2017-01-31 00:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).

Sylvia.
Bob Officer
2017-01-31 04:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
72F no wind, and full sunshine all day. At sunset batteries were at 100%,.
All the lights in the RV are LEDs, low current draw lights. We never have
all the lights on at one time. If all the lights are on it still wouldn't
draw 120watts (10 amps) and the transceiver only pulls 2 amps at 12volts on
receive. And at full power 100 watts transmit 10 amps.

56F at home today, 88% sun... batteries are at 100%. Ran circulations fans
in he house for 4 hours today. Air dehydrators at fully functional and the
inside humidity is at 5 %. Outside humidity is at 60% and dew point is 34%,
wind is 8mph out of the NNW...
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Bob Officer
2017-01-31 23:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
72F no wind, and full sunshine all day. At sunset batteries were at 100%,.
All the lights in the RV are LEDs, low current draw lights. We never have
all the lights on at one time. If all the lights are on it still wouldn't
draw 120watts (10 amps) and the transceiver only pulls 2 amps at 12volts on
receive. And at full power 100 watts transmit 10 amps.

56F at home today, 88% sun... batteries are at 100%. Ran circulations fans
in he house for 4 hours today. Air dehydrators at fully functional and the
inside humidity is at 5 %. Outside humidity is at 60% and dew point is 34%,
wind is 8mph out of the NNW...

Temps are supposed to drop to 39F tonight but hit a little over 70F
tomorrow.
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Anton
2017-03-09 11:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
2017-03-09 12:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
what is really solar, and a mature technology too, is heliotherma or dud
shemesh in hebrew, and we have in Greece and israel, too. Even when it's
much too cold to bathe with cold water, we have scalding hot water from
the sun! The saved money and electricity over the lifetime of a
heliothermo are tremendous.Even is summer you have hot water for dishes!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
Sylvia Else
2017-03-09 22:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Anton
2017-03-10 04:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
Sylvia Else
2017-03-10 04:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
]
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.

Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
this year). Did someone say "third world"?

Even more reason to get my generator running again.

Sylvia.
BruceS
2017-03-10 15:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
]
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.
Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
this year). Did someone say "third world"?
Even more reason to get my generator running again.
Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
(largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.
Sylvia Else
2017-03-11 00:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
]
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.
Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
this year). Did someone say "third world"?
Even more reason to get my generator running again.
Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
(largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.
We have more than enough coal of our own - hundreds of years worth at
current consumption, and most of our current base-load supply uses coal.
But coal doesn't make economic sense for anything but base load - the
plant is too expensive.

Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.

We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."

Sylvia.
BruceS
2017-03-11 19:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
]
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Anton
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
Australia.
Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.
Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
this year). Did someone say "third world"?
Even more reason to get my generator running again.
Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
(largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.
We have more than enough coal of our own - hundreds of years worth at
current consumption, and most of our current base-load supply uses coal.
But coal doesn't make economic sense for anything but base load - the
plant is too expensive.
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Sylvia Else
2017-03-12 02:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.

Sylvia.
Alan McKinley
2017-03-12 12:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
end result is something based on methods and technology that is
no longer optimal.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.
But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.

Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
always in the larger facilities.
BruceS
2017-03-13 15:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
end result is something based on methods and technology that is
no longer optimal.
Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
natural gas easily handle sudden need.
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.
But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.
The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.
Post by Alan McKinley
Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
always in the larger facilities.
It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
2017-03-13 17:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BruceS
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
end result is something based on methods and technology that is
no longer optimal.
Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
natural gas easily handle sudden need.
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.
But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.
The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.
Post by Alan McKinley
Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
always in the larger facilities.
It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
(without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear
energy.IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.
Stéphane Duceppe
2017-03-14 00:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Post by BruceS
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
end result is something based on methods and technology that is
no longer optimal.
Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
natural gas easily handle sudden need.
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.
But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.
The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.
Post by Alan McKinley
Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
always in the larger facilities.
It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
(without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear
energy.IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.
Nuclear energy is a billion year cleanup problem, and that is
assuming it can all be contained safely that long.

Environmental damage from coal, oil and gas can be recovered in
less than a century, usually a few decades. Recovery does not
include cleaning up mines, that is a separate issue.

If you want to help stop global warming, insulate in summer,
don't heat your home in the winter. Wear more clothing.
BruceS
2017-03-14 14:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stéphane Duceppe
Post by Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Post by BruceS
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is
singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by
either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind
taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building
peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has
been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to
supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.
Governments get caught up in stupid political red tape and the
end result is something based on methods and technology that is
no longer optimal.
Yes, it sounds like the usual government screwup. Solar and wind
should never be counted on for supply. AIUI, here we always have
reliable backup to match any claimed production ability of those. We
have some large wind farms in areas that are fairly consistently windy,
but still don't count on them. Things like coal provides a solid,
dependable level of power (yes, not quickly adjustable) and things like
natural gas easily handle sudden need.
Post by Alan McKinley
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
Post by Sylvia Else
We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the
environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of
uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.
But when they do leak they can't always be controlled until
substantial harm is done to large geographical regions.
The biggest nuclear accident in the U.S., Three Mile Island, never did
any real harm. The highest radiation levels released were less than
the background radiation levels in places like my state, CO. The
disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima did release a lot of radiation,
but it's hard to make any generalization from such a small sample set.
Post by Alan McKinley
Just a personal observation, but it seems the nuke problems are
always in the larger facilities.
It seems to me the big problems are from poor designs that aren't
updated as we learn more. There isn't much accountability when a
disaster does happen, and the damage easily crosses political
boundaries. Then there's the problem of waste disposal.
You can't compare US nuclear reactors to soviet ones, as the latter
didn't even have a containment building, were boiling water reactors,
had a graphit moderator, the fuel elements were exchanged on the fly
(without shutting the reactor down, obviously).Also after the accident
on the 4th unit, the other 3 units continued in normal operation until,
I think 2000 when they were shut down for good. Also in Fukushima the
company who build the rector tried to cut corners to increase profits.
For a couple of bad apples we shouldn't denigrate peaceful nuclear
energy.
You'll notice that I'm not claiming the plants with the catastrophic
failures indicate a fundamental problem with all other plants. They
were, as I indicated, bad designs (or if you will, bad
implementations). Unfortunately, they are hardly unique, as there are
many plants out there with bad designs or implementations. When
corrupt individuals "cut corners" or otherwise ignore safety, the
results can be disastrous. I'm in favor of safer nuclear plants,
though with some reservations.
Post by Stéphane Duceppe
Post by Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
IMHO I prefer nuclear energy than more nuclear bombs.
You may want to look up the term "false dichotomy".
Post by Stéphane Duceppe
Nuclear energy is a billion year cleanup problem, and that is
assuming it can all be contained safely that long.
Agreed, essentially, although that can be "containment" rather than
"cleanup". Yet another problem with our (U.S.) nuke plants is that
they only use a small fraction of the fuel, leaving the rest as high
level waste. That's very bad for efficiency, but far worse for the
containment problem.
Post by Stéphane Duceppe
Environmental damage from coal, oil and gas can be recovered in
less than a century, usually a few decades. Recovery does not
include cleaning up mines, that is a separate issue.
If you want to help stop global warming, insulate in summer,
don't heat your home in the winter. Wear more clothing.
I have plenty of money to keep the thermostat wherever I want it, but
in winter we keep it at (3 zones) 64 and 66F and (as you suggest) wear
more clothing. Being in Colorado, that definitely involves heating,
but nowhere near as much as if we, like many who can't even afford to
pay their own utilities, kept it in the high 70s. For summer, we have
a single room A/C, and wear less clothing.

I don't know which ngs you two come from, this thread being so widely
crossposted, but I'm happy to see sci.skeptic get some traffic,
especially as thoughtful and considered as the above. Thanks!
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
2017-03-10 18:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
...and even when it's sunny and they start generating all of a sudden
and without the control of the grid operators, there are impulses that
can easily destroy sensitive equipment, CFL lamps etc. One major CFL
manufacturer withdrew the guarantee for Crete because of this! The
voltage is too unstable never mind the AVR feature of the susbstation
HV/MV transformers. 150/20kV. Ditto for the wind turbines!Because of EU
legislation the utility is *obliged* to buy any electricity generated
anytime, without taking into account the grid's stability, or voltage
regulation!
Morris Dovey
2017-03-19 21:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
Sylvia.
Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
....and even when it's sunny and they start generating all of a sudden
and without the control of the grid operators, there are impulses that
can easily destroy sensitive equipment, CFL lamps etc. One major CFL
manufacturer withdrew the guarantee for Crete because of this! The
voltage is too unstable never mind the AVR feature of the susbstation
HV/MV transformers. 150/20kV. Ditto for the wind turbines!Because of EU
legislation the utility is *obliged* to buy any electricity generated
anytime, without taking into account the grid's stability, or voltage
regulation!
Most of this thread is off-topic for alt.solar.thermal, and if the
interest is in keeping warm – whether in GR, AU, or points between – I
can offer a few ideas at the link below. In 2015 I conducted a
how-to-build workshop in Thermaikos, and the people there seemed happy
with the performance of the panel we built. :-)
--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/Panels/
Sylvia Else
2017-02-10 01:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
Sylvia.
In further news, in New South Wales, we're being warned of the
possibility of rolling blackouts later today as people return home from
work and turn on air conditioners just around the time that solar power
diminishes.

Temperatures up to 38C where I live, and 44C inland.

Sylvia.
Loading...