Panasonic moves closer to home energy self-sufficiency with fuel cells

me too -
Correction to the OP however;
Dramatically improving solar economics with cost effective hybrid assemblies. - Home
Companies like the one above have already elevated sunpower (our partinular brand) pv panels FAR above a mere 20%, by simply adding a thin water jacket to the backside of panels ... effectively raising pv panels peak efficiency to over 85%. Not only do the panels stay cooler (which raises pv efficiency) - but what would otherwise be waste heat, is scavenged for water and/or space heating. So, just as fuel cell waste heat works to add efficiency - pv now enjoys the same benefit. I don't know why this system wasn't put into commercial existence decades ago - but i'm hoping to add this to our 7.1 AC rated pv system .
BTW, our associations 50,000sq' Clubhouse looked into a fuel cell system for both heat and electricity, fed from the plumbed in natural gas. I don't know how much the prices have fallen in the past 18 months or so, but at the time it was too cost prohibitive (purchase/install/maintenance) to move forward. But hopefully, prices will come down, just like they have for PV. The one thing I could never find out is if these large systems collect the co2, or if it simply gets jettisoned back into the atmosphere just like natural gas burning does.
.

 

I'm not, I've always been very pro-hydrogen. I've been dreaming about it for many years, ever since I saw the guy on the east coast that has excess solar generating hydrogen.

What I am against, is the stupid waste of funds on trying to commercialize FCVs AND carb picking winners and losers. Their obvious bias towards FCVs and rewriting their own rules to give more credits to hydrogen rather than BEVs is awful.

Development should continue, commercialization for FCVs is a long way off.
For stationary storage, commercialization is a lot closer.
merged

You didn't really just say that, did you?

 

Efficiency in terms of percentage of solar energy or wind is a really really bad measure for renewables. Better measures are $/kwh (or what ever monitary unit) for an installed system, and acres/kwh. If you already have a roof, then adding solar though more expensive than utility scale for panels and installation, you don't need to pay for land or use extra. Wind turbines need to be physically separated, but unlike a coal plant or concentrated solar panels, the land can still work for other uses. That's why wind is often better for utility or corporate sized farms, and solar pv for individuals. Concentrated solar power and many other schemes turn out to be less advantageous for these things.

This future hydrogen tech will probably have that small footprint that solar pV has, but will likely cost more per kwh. That extra cost though may be alright if used off grid, or to produce hydrogen, or as emergency generation (military, hospital, data center, etc).

The system wasn't put in decades ago, because it would have added to the already high costs of installing solar. Stationary Fuel cell systems work in california because the utilities and public utility commision regulate poorly, making the more efficient ccgt and wind harder to build then say google or a club house simply buying a subsidized fuel cell. That does though help fund more fuel cell research, which I don't think as a bad thing. Regulations in california recently changed so apple is building large scale solar instead of adding more fuel cells, but it really would be less costly to other grid users if the regulations were better.

These can all co-exist, and I am all for panasonic pushing this technology forward. It will probably take decades to be cost effective, but who knows it may get used in a hybrid system, with hospitals and other places needing to have good emergency power, using electrolysis stored hydrogen produced at night to help reduce peak fossil fuel use, and solar hydrogen providing enough power if there is an emergency. The old system used diesel generators. Tesla is proposing a power wall, but a hydrogen system may be cheaper in the future.

 

There is one available for general use; like flashlights, phone charging, radios, etc. Forgot its name, but I think it is sold under a couple of brands.
It's further out, but there is also a laser hydride systems. They use a CD like plate to store the hydrogen on, which has the potential of easy swapping. That could mean the hydrogen infrastructure didn't have to extend out as far during the early stages of adoption in order for a person to get a car.

We could take CO2 out of the air to make methane and diesel too. This might even do that, but it won't provide electric power and remove CO2.

It gets dumped into the air. Capturing CO2 from decentralized reformers has the reverse problem of centralized, you have to transport the CO2 back to some sequestering site. A chemical trap, like soda lime, could be used, but that is added cost and maintanence.

Isn't storing the hot water, the same problem as storing the hydrogen?
Water is a pretty good heat sink though. Moving some of the heat from the PV to a tank of water to preheat it before required heating will save energy at the hot water tank or on demand unit. Otherwise, it will just get dumped off a radiator. Do you got a pool, Hill?

Shifting time of use has already been solved for those home PV operators that want to go off grid. They are called batteries, and they are likely still cheaper than a fuel cell in terms of home use. But why go off grid when the grid can have wind that tends to peak in the evenings and mornings? A grid sized fuel cell might work there to make use of that excess wind at low demands.

 

This is how grid tied solar works. Solar goes onto the grid when the home is not using it, then reducing the fossil fuel consumed to meet demand. Then when the homeowner uses power burn fossil fuel. The net effect is what is important to the countries pollution and greenhouse gas level. The country does not plan to build more coal plants to compensate for grid tied solar even if you use more power at night.
Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants | Clean Power Plan | US EPA

Alternatively a person or company can go off grid. They then need to buy more equipment, which you guessed it cause pollution and ghg. The net effect to the country is worse. why would you store the solar as hot water. It can be used immediately by someone else. It is extremely selfish to take a government subsidy, then go off grid, where the power can not be used to increase grid reliability.

The US produces less than 1% of its power from solar as does japan. There is no need to store solar power. There is some need to store some wind as its about 5% Texas is testing some battery systems, New York and California some fuel cell systems. Let's not pretend that there is a problem with excess solar energy in this country or japan.
Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post
Then again this tech really won't be available until after 2030. By then there are some niches that it may help.

I'm all for the R&D, but really against a definition of energy that makes people build more expensive systems that end up being worse for the country. Dumbing down the grid where you think you have to store solar because the net effect needs to be accounted for badly is not a way to make sound environmental or economic decisions. Using a net definition texas has been able to build 10% wind in 15 short years, you guessed it reducing fossil fuel by about 10% versus not building it. WIthout the wind more coal power plants would have been economic in texas and would have been built, and texas would be burning more coal and natural gas today. With your definition, people would not have signed up for the wind. Your definition though is often spoken by the coal industry though, because it helps them fight against building renewables that offset coal. Thank you for doing your part and grid tying your solar system, and not being selfish and taking the power off grid.

 

Supposedly California is now up to 8% solar, according to those Washington Post graphics. Solar is much higher in Germany and we can do much higher here in a cost-effective manner, especially with added utility distribution stationary batteries.

 

One of the difficulties (also for Va.) if you look at in-state power plants it appears we don't use much coal (for example) but we import a lot of power from other states.

 

Can you show a source, I would be happy to be wrong.

I know of no place in the US where solar outpaces demand. There are places like I said with wind, but that is a different system.

 

Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post

 

You already did.

This is from the Washington Post energy maps link you posted less than an hour ago:

I have no idea if those are accurate numbers but I do have the general impression that solar has been growing rapidly in CA and is planned to rapidly become a much bigger electricity source than it has been in the recent past.

One side-effect of this is PG&E's pending proposal to aggressively install 25,000 utility-managed plugin car charging stations at housing complexes, shopping centers, and work locations. The largely unspoken reason for this is to promote daytime charging as a way to usefully absorb lots of future solar power. We may see off-peak electric rates during daytime hours within the next 5-10 years.

 

Doh. My own source. Which I did not fully read.

California Sets New Solar Records | Solar | Rewire | KCET

Appears to detail the story. 8% on a single day 2/12/2015, that does not include roof top solar. That is great, but I'd love to hear the whole number for the year. Those big CSP plants are producing more than I expected, and as more solar pv goes on rooftops peak numbers will grow.

That source said germany is now at 6.2% of total grid power. I do hope california can get there soon. At those levels california needs grid upgrades but not storage for solar. At 15% grid power storage makes sense. I don't know why no one has a good estimate on how much solar pv on private rooftops is generating as these system are net metered and need to be filed with the state to be built and rebated.

Go California! push toward that grid tied 15%, where storage tech might be needed.
Solar in California's urban areas could provide 5 times the power the state needs | Computerworld

 

I don't think CARB ever gave state rebates for hybrids, at least I can't find a reference for it.
I asked you before "when" did this occur?
The federal rebates ran out at the end of 2010.
So to answer your question, "what's new" I would say the last time rebates ended for hybrids as the next technology reached commercial availability.

As for your last comment, that is misleading. Solar and wind don't need fossil fuels to go 100% renewable. They need to store the energy in some way. That can be batteries, that are available now, or hydrogen, which will some day be available.

 

CARB wants federal dollars to benefit a few well to do people in their state; the leases are in the area of $3000 down and $500 to $600 a month. I'm fine with fuel cell R&D spending, but not in an attempt to comercialize something that isn't ready for prime time. I'd rather seen the funds go to CNG hybrids, or FCEV trucks, hydrogen or otherwise.

Link in my sig, but how can there be measurable results with just a few aging Clarities and F-cells, with the hydrogen guzzling Tuscon FCEV on the road?

For the record, I am okay with the plugin incentive. The battery costs have dropped since the cars have debut, and this helps plugins, hybrids, FCEVs, and renewable grid power storage systems.

It isn't being put in a car. Is your house made of straw?
Solar hot water uses tanks about the same size as an electric or gas water heater. Bigger is better, but that is true for all of them. I don't know if these water cooled PV panels can get the water as hot as dedicated hot water ones, but using the waste heat to heat the home's water supply, or even climate, displaces some of whatever the energy source that would have been used.

Ultimately, you aren't trying to store more water, but just the heat, and water is a great heatsink.

Hydride will likely be chosen for storing hydrogen in this type of system. Weight isn't an issue, and people don't want noisy compressors in their house.

Non-sense. Solar and wind just need an electric generating source with an output that can be adjusted to demand. It can be pumped water, compressed air, hydrogen for turbine or fuel cell, or even one for the other, and tidal power isn't even on the stage yet. Nuclear can be good for it too. It is just that natural gas is cheaper and easier to get built at this time.

Would you rather more coal was built? With the nuke fear in this country, natural gas is the best thing for electric power while transiting to more renewables. It doesn't have the sulfur, radio isotope, and mercury emissions of coal. Nor any toxic fly ash waste. It also has lower GHG. As the renewable portion of the grid grows, we might be able to run the NG plants being built now bio or syn methane, or even hydrogen. The turbines aren't too picky about what flammable gas they consume. In short, NG for electricity is a good thing at this time.

Natural gas for hydrogen gets talked about because the FCEV lobby wants to pretend that it isn't; that hydrogen can be made renewably, but electricity can't. It reduces the GHG compared to a gasoline car, but does it for a CNG one? If hydrogen FCEVs, plugin or not, become viable, using natural gas as bridge to more renewable sources is a fair use, as it is in electric production. But be honest about it; that those renewable pathways are too costly now, and would be a hurdle to adoption.

 

They don't require it "maybe in 10 years" - today, it's 95% natural gas - & to even hint that that is not the case today - right now - is dishonest. But we all know that & already finished beating that dead horse. Why dig it up, only to dishonestly beat it some more?
Oh ... and "what's new"? CARB set benefits for Plugins, based on likelihood of getting them off the ground. Toyota leadership has already as much as admitted hydrogen (cars) are 10 to 100 years out. Subsidize 'em when it's a bit closer ..... 40 or 50 years from now ought to do. Not now, if ever.
Fuel cell buildings may work ... when the costs come down, and we're not just exchanging 'natural gas' co2 for 'hydrogen' co2.
.... and why is a NON car application fuel cel topic located in the FC car section? Maybe ask the mods to locate it environmental? just a thought ... that might help it from transitioning ... the way it seems to be doing.
.

 

Solar doesn't necessarily require fossil fuels either (hello batteries). Why do you have to mislead to make your points? This makes the hydrogen movement appear more like a cult.

 

Well in order for the grid to be 100% renewable, everything needs to be built from recyclable material with renewable energy, and my net fossil fuel accounting doesn't work. That only works to get us from here to say 70% rewewable, and those renewables are going to be backed by fossil or biofuels, as that is how we cycle cheaply. Biofuels can be 100% renewable, but I doubt those ccgt plants are going to pick renewable methane to run on if fossil is cheaper.

Of course this is a bigger problem for hydrogen, since renewable hydrogen to power a house and car costs more than renewable electricity plug biogas ccgt + phev using renewable electricity and renewable methanol.

I just think we should thing about what gets us to 70% fossil free before worrying about 100%. if you let perefect be the enemy of the good, you end up just keeping those old coal plants going. What I object to is proposing a scernario where we count in such a way that we obstruct building ccgt natural gas, wind, and solar - and end up keeping 40+ year old coal plants, because hell, everyone is looking out for themselves and going off grid with the wind and solar, and there isn't enough money to build the power plants for the people left behind.

The selfish accounting causes poor group decisions and slows the change.

You could for example add solar and net metering, and in your connect bill help pay for poor people on the grid, and for maintenance and updates.

Or you can go off grid and buy your hydrogen car, and someone the tax payers or you will pay more. The net effect on the country is likely higher ghg, then that net fossil fuel because you are using more to build and maintain the extra infrastructure. It's definitely with in your rights. What if 1,000,000 did that. How much would the grid be cleaned up? First you aren't paying, so it probably means those fixed assets like old coal and nuclear, and hydro stay running. Natural gas cycling probably gets cut, but oops, not as much as if you had remained on the grid as that solar would have cut peak demand. Net net more fossil is burned.

That is why I like accounting for net fossil burn and not pretend there is virtue in building stand alone infrastructure because somehow that is more efficient or fair.

 

This Guy is way ahead of Panasonic or not! Michael Strizki's Fantastic Solar Hydrogen Home - YouTube