Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

I have a question for those who advocate replacing the entire US power grid with Solar and wind sources of production. That question is how do you intend to keep up with demand?

The truth is solar and wind are great supplemental sources of energy but not cost effective in any way as an entire replacement

 

Thanks.

I've been through enough with the cripple-winged wonder to know all the above. But every now and again I can't resist amusing myself.

 

Easy!

We chant, "Yes, we can," pull a little magic pixie dust out of out nether regions, sprinkle it about and congratulate ourselves on how progressive and morally superior we are.

 

Thank your for your answer.

My problem is (as I said in the earlier post) that we (society) are too quick to dismiss non quantifiable cost merely because we cannot quantify them.

For example, nebulous "quality of life" issues certainly have a cost, but that cost might not show up in a balance sheet. For example, if one were to build a shopping mall across the road from my rural house, clearly I would pay a price in quality of life, that may or may not be compensated by the increased value of my property. Where would the compensation be if I didn't wish to sell?

Back to the issue at hand, alternative energy. Pv solar can compete with very little direct subsidy in todays market place depending on the current price of grid electricity. The hard issue is figuring out how that grid is currently subsidized.

For example, in the Pacific NW, we have comparatively cheap electricity rates for grid power, therefor making PV solar "more expensive. On the other hand, much of our power comes from BPA Hydro that had huge environmental costs that were never recovered in the KWH price. We also have heavily subsidized Nuclear, that also doesn't cover it's real costs. So, in reality, do we have cheap power. You might think we do, I think not.

Other parts of the country have different (and in my mind) better electricity pricing, including demand ratings, time of day metering etc. These types of pricing/energy cost strategy may lead to higher prices in some measure, but lower in others. I am not meaning to imply that even these strategies cover their true costs, but in general, higher prices tend to cover more of their total costs. ( the ones we spoke about in the previous post(s)). As a result, Pv solar is much more competitive, irrespective of the subsidy/grant/tax treatments.

In simple terms, it is much easier to justify Pv solar when you can get paid as much as $.35 kwh for peak demand supply, (and buy back at night at $.08 kwh so your net bill is near zero even if you consume more than you generate).

What is also clear to me is that the advantage of PV only gets better as time goes forward. Electricity prices are only likely to rise over the life span of a PV system (20+ years) regardless of how you feel about global warming.

So the reality is, basing decisions on first cost is often proved to be more costly over life cycle. Compare a Toyota vs a Yugo. Which will be cheaper net/net at the end of say 200,000 miles.

So, if we agree that we can't quantify all the costs of everything we doe (especially with regards to energy) perhaps we can agree that the only honest way to compare is to at least accept that all current forms of energy come with significant subsidy, and that to have an honest argument we cannot dismiss those that we don't quantify.

And a note to RP, No body cares about your opinion.

 

I don't believe anyone here has advocated "replace(ing) the entire US power grid with Solar and wind sources".

What i am suggesting is that a sane energy policy should include RE and factoring in costs beyond the raw cost of fuel should be a part of a sane energy policy. One can't, with any honesty deride RE as too expensive/not viable without subsidy etc with at least considering the kind of costs that we have spoken about above.

 

We already have a fairly sane energy policy that does that.

 

Well we will have to agree to disagree about that one.

Hostage to OPEC oil, peak oil, CO2 emission,,,

We have had no real energy policy for 30 years (aside from chasing ever more expensive oil) and we are beginning to pay the price for it.

If we had made more rational policy choices in 1973 with the first Arab oil embargo we might be in a much better energy position now,, not to mention the global warming issue that many deny.

A sane energy policy would pay big dividends on energy independence/national security/economic benefit, but alas we been too concerned with keeping Big Energy happy, and keeping taxes low. (at considerable long term cost/debt).

 

The concept of present value allows a mathematical determination of total cost over time. All revenues and costs are identified and quantified, and discounted back to the present using an interest rate that represents the time value of money. Including the social and environmental costs, petroleum use continues to get more expensive, and renewables get cheaper. There's nothing nonsensical about it - it's a simple economic concept. Think of it like total cost of car ownership: a Prius might seem more expensive to buy now, but the lower annual maintenance costs make it cheaper in the long run.

Wind and solar are in their infancy, compared to coal and oil. The startup costs are significant, and it's simply not valid to consider the money spent to date as a per unit of energy cost. Nothing would ever get developed if we only looked at things from that viewpoint. And why do oil and coal need any subsidy at all? Shouldn't the industries be able to stand on their own after this many centuries of development?

 

*

 

I'll make a deal with you. I will answer all you questions as long as you agree not to spend your every waking hour thinking of ways to trip me up, quoting me out of context, saying I said something that I didn't say. That you will read the intent and meaning of what I say, even if I either state it poorly (Which I whole heartedly admit too) or if I typo/misspeak as we are all wont to do,, including you!

I'll give you your answer and assume that you will accept my terms. This forum has been ruined by the yelling and screaming at one another and while I have some culpability, I honestly fell that it is your peers that uses that tactic in a much larger way. I have no problem discussing openly and honestly our differences of opinion/ideas, but whenever it resorts to nastiness and vitriol the exchange of ideas is lost.

So to answer your question, within the limits of my knowledge. Grid tie solar (PV) has no real on going maintenance costs. Most name brand solar panels are warranted to produce ~80% of name plate rating over the life of the warrantee, usually in the neighbourhood of 20-25 years. There is little to no evidence that solar panels degrade with time. (That said, there is a bit of difference between Pv technologies, thin film Amorphous panes, as opposed to Polymorphous) I believe that the Amorphous are more prone to losing output over time. So baring damage from outside events, trees falling , fire from other sources etc. they should last virtually forever. (Pv panels are made with stout tempered glass. This is the same kind of glass found in patio doors. It will withstand very large impact loads from things like bird strikes and large sized hail with out damage. When the glass breaks, it fails catastrophically, breaking into a million little bits, adhered on to the substrate. What will break a panel quite easily is striking the edge of the panel, or dropping it on it's corner for example. (That is why most panels come with stout aluminum frames). In ~18 years of messing about with PV I know of only one panel failure, and that was due to bad install. A wasp got into the junction box causing the blocking diode to short out. A simple repair.
Panel cost (roughly $2-3 watt raw, $5-8 watt for a total installation)

As for other hardware, there is really only one piece in a grid tie set up. (Remember, with a grid tie system, there is no battery, all the power produced by the PV is used at the time of production either by the owner, or it is sold to the grid and used. There is no capacity to "store" the Pv energy, it is used as it is produced). The only hardware (aside from wire/boxes etc) is the inverter. The inverter converts the Direct current & voltage (DC) to household alternating current (AC). The inverter takes PV system voltage, which can vary with design/sunshine etc and through some electronic magic converts it to 120/240 vac. Because the output of the PV is constantly variable, due to weather, temperature, time of day etc. the inverter has to make sure that the invert output is "clean". So in the net/net the panel current/voltage output may vary considerably minute to minute, the inverter must ALWAYS put out 120/240 vac, regardless of current. So on minute it might out out 240 volts at 1 amp, (240 watts) the next with an edge of cloud event it might put out 10 amps 2400 watts, but in both cases the voltage must remain 240/ 60 hz or the inverter will be out of sync with the grid and will shut down as a safety precaution. The inverter must "see" stable grid power or it will shut down. In the event that the grid goes down (power failure) the inverter will go to zero output with in milliseconds, ensuring that an inverter can't back feed a dead grid, causing damage or injury to a line that is thought to be dead. The life expectancy of a modern grid tie inverter is expected to be 15+ years. Typical warrantee periods run 5-15 years. Inverter cost is (roughly $1/watt)

So in a typical grid tie system, I would expect you to replace an invert once in the 25 year life span, but I would not expect to have to replace more than ~1% of Panels. (My number,, WAG)

Now if you go with a battery based system, it is another whole ball of wax. First off, battery based systems come at ~double the watt price as a grid tie system, with about 1/2 the output, make a battery based system somewhere near 4 times as expense per kwh of output.

The reason(s) that battery based systems are more expensive are several. In addition to an inverter, you also require a charge controller to manage the charge current/voltage to the battery bank. I would expect most charge controllers to have a life span similar to an inverter, 10-15 year.

You also need to buy a very expensive battery bank, and it's life span is variable due to many factors, including battery chemistry, battery quality, average depth of discharge, average rate of recharge, etc, etc, etc. Battery life can range from as short as a few months if batteries are not taken care of, to 20+ years in systems that are UPS's that see little or no drawdown, but get good care. A pretty good rule of thumb is 3-5 years for simple "golf cart" FLA batteries, to 7-10 year (if you are really good!) for industrial rated batteries.

The other fundamental system loss for a battery based system is basic charging efficiency. In short, it takes ~120 wh of charging power to replace ~100 wh of load. So right off the bat, you lose ~20%. Add in other system loses and the net/net number comes in ~.52%. That is for every 100 watts of Panel, under ideal conditions you are likely to get ~52 watts of useable power (per "good" sun hour).

So, as we always suggest, if you have the grid, use it! It is a much cheaper alternative up front, lower maintenance costs and much greater system efficiency.

So to sum up your question. In the real world, there is very little system maintenance costs, certainly on an annual basis. An occasional wash off of the dust/pollen might be a good idea in a dry climate.

Now if, you can keep it civil, I will be glad to answer any other questions you may have.

 

I will accept your premise that you are not looking to get into another fight at face value.

Once again, I think you confuse weather with climate. Because it snows anywhere on any GIVEN day is not relevant to a climate discussion.

You have never heard me suggest that because it have been record warm in the Pacific NW this winter, that is "global warming" What I have suggested is that while individual "weather" anomalies are just that, the trends are what matter, and indeed, IMHO the historic trend is toward the warm.

 

While not related to solar, a wind farm on the Campo Indian Reservation 60 miles east of San Diego was severely damaged in a winter storm last month. All the blades from all the turbines had to be removed and replaced, a multi-month task.

Wind farm: A damaging blow - SignOnSanDiego.com

While alternative power sources may be effective, they should stand on their own merits and not rely on taxpayer subsidies. But regardless of how effective these alternatives are, we still need baseload, 24-hour/day power. Only fossil fuels and nuclear work for most jurisdictions for baseload demands.

 

Lewie, I invite you to read this, as well as the posts previous to this one.

Lewie said "While alternative power sources may be effective, they should stand on their own merits and not rely on taxpayer subsidies."

I would agree with that statement IF other energy sources were required to do so as well. I would also add that (in reference to our conversations about "cheapest") if we ought to consider other costs as well as "direct taxpayer subsidies".

Please also note that all manner of industrial/energy facilities are being damaged all the time from weather events (as well as other disasters!) Oil/gas pipe lines/drilling platforms damaged due to hurricanes, oil refineries due to fire, grid power due to lightning, hydro dams due to damage from floods or debris etc. So using a single event to nay say wind is disingenuous.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Icarus what would be the initial cost for a setup like the original you mentioned. Looking for something to power the average 1800 sq ft home with all the usual amenities? Rough panel size as well

 

Not a simple question as size of house has very little to do with the soze of PV system needed. What matters is how (and potentially) when you use your power.

In simple numbers, grid tie Pv is running ~$7-10/watt. A typical grid tie system might start ~2000 watts (2kw) or $14-20,000. Factor in federal tax credits, local tax credit, utility rebates etc, and you might get the out of pocket cost ~1/2 -2/3 of that.

That said, what we always suggest is that Pv is nearly the last thing one should do. The first thing one should do is do EVERYTHING you can to reduce consumption, from upgrading HVAC, to light bulbs, to appliances. In rough numbers, for every dollar spent on conservation, you will save ~$10 on Pv costs.

After conservation, the next thing to do is some more conservation. It may seem counter intuitive, but there are a ton of places to save lots of energy. After that conservation, then one should consider solar hot water, since it comes is at ~1/10-1/3 the price (per BTU) and at 3-5 times the efficiency. (this assumes that you haven't done hot water recovery from your heat pump as part of your conservation process.)

Only then should you invest in PV. (I am not meaning to discourage PV, I am merely pointing out that it makes little sense to spend $10/watt for PV to power Conventional light bulbs, when CFLs will drop loads by a factor of ~3. LED, that are just now becoming cost effective drop that cost by a factor of ~10!

The reality is that PV is not cheap, for reasons discussed above it has to compete with other forms of power that are not really paying their total costs.

 

Not sure how this energy discussion got bunched into the climate change - AGW or not thread, but... (What's up with that, Moderators?)

That appears to be a simple case of not specifying the right parts, or getting a defective batch of parts. They clearly underestimated the winds that would be seen in the area, and didn't use turbines capable of handling those winds.

If you're using that example as a knock against wind turbines - well - I'm sure one could come up with a ton of similar cases against any type of energy.

No argument there, but to ensure a level playing field, we should also remove all the subsidies on fossil fuels, nuclear, big agro (corn/ethanol) as well.

Solar-thermal plants can also be built to deliver 24-hour/day power - typically by storing molten salt to drive turbines through the night.

There are also many large scale grid-storage projects in development which are being designed exactly for this purpose - stabilizing the grid with unstable power sources. Things like large-scale batteries, capacitors, hydro (pump excess power upstream for use later) as well as upgrading the reliability of the grid to make it possible to send energy from long distances efficiently should a local energy source become temporarily unavailable.

As icarus already mentioned, there are a ton of variables. I would suggest the following:

1. Start off with an energy audit. Figure out where you can conserve energy as this will deliver an immediate benefit as well as long term since you will be able to install a smaller PV system lowering your costs.

2. Collect 12 months of bills and see what your yearly electricity usage and cost is.

3. Evaluate your site to see how much space you have for panels. Take into account mounting direction, shading, etc.

Once you have that information you can start thinking about the design of your system and how much of your electricity bill you will be able to offset.

 

"Not sure how this energy discussion got bunched into the climate change - AGW or not thread, but... (What's up with that, Moderators?)"

May be those that haven't believed in AGW are now beginning to get it. One can only help.

 

You got me! Your arguments, such as comparing Australia's summer (with snow LOL) to our winter, and water + energy = ice really convinced me! Apparently you are Jesus, because no one else could do these miracles such as water + energy = ice. Putting energy into water and getting ice is a bigger miracle than the myth of Jesus turning water into wine. He only changed the substance, you made an opposite phase change than expected. Therefore, I choose to follow you and believe anything you write.