energy sources [Archive] - Renovate Forums

damian

14th June 2011, 02:07 PM

There are solid economic arguments also. Fossil and nucleur are about half the cost to generate than most other systems, although transport cost is fixed obviously, so the cost at point of use isn't double with other methods (like solar and wind), but they are always higher by a signifigant margine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

Wikipedia, but it's concise and readable. I can find you links to much more detailed reports if you've got a couple of days to kill :)

It's worth noting that Cecil isn't political, he neither favours right or left positions, he merely states the facts, and mixes in a little humour.

Also, I'll mention it again, search bluegen, australian company, ex csiro technology. It's a fuel cell you install at home, about the size of a large dishwasher (bigger with the integrated hot water system), uses piped natural gas (mostly hydrogen very little carbon) puts out 1.5 kW, max 2, at point of use. A very nice machine. I have been thinking of buying shares in the company, I think once production is properly underway they will have a bright future.

Dropcat

14th June 2011, 09:06 PM

Hot rocks, aka geothermal - Hot rocks key to electricity needs: expert › News in Science (ABC Science) (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/14/3243619.htm)

Simple idea, you drill a deep hole, pump cold water down and get hot water back. The interior of the Earth is hot from the heat of decaying radioactive stuff at the core. That's not going to run out soon.

Iceland gets about 25% of it's power from geothermal, the rest from hydro. Geothermal is much easier in Iceland due to all those volcanoes laying about.

ColW

15th June 2011, 12:54 PM

I agree the energy outlook on a global scale is bleak considering the expected population of 9.2 billion by 2050. Australia's relative population is expected to be 36M of which immigration will account for about 11M, the dilemma for us being, even if we aspire to reduce our energy use per capita in the meantime, the immigrants entering our country ( mostly from SE Asia who currently use 1/10th the energy we do ) will be likely to increase theirs, increasing need for the whole country to reduce usage even further.

I'm about 1/3 the way through this document

http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/Australian_Sustainable_Energy-by_the_numbers3.pdf

Page 45 puts "the bill" into some kind of perspective, keeping in mind this a local (Australian) solution, as for the developing global regions, their populations are unsustainable and there's no economic, scientific, or social solution available or ever likely to be

col.

Harry72

15th June 2011, 02:11 PM

The silliest thing is the lack of funding for thorium powered reactors there is no need for any alt power at all...

damian

15th June 2011, 02:21 PM

New Zealand gets signifigant % of it's electricity from geo and other "renewables".

The thing that strikes me is this:

Lets say Australia moves to 100% renewables (we can't but lets just imagine for a moment).

Lets say the whole western developed world follows suit.

The simple fact is that the rest of the world will put extreme pressure on their governments and energy suppliers to provide power in future and the ONLY way we know of to even try to satisfy that demand is via fossil and other non PC methods. If they are denied power the consequences are social upheval. Serious social upheval.

This seems to have been completely overlooked in the current debate throughout the developed world.

It's just a really unhappy element of the future.

The trouble with that paper is he glosses over some key problems. In fact just skimming it it just seems to me he lacks a fundamental understanding of the implications of a lot of what he's proposing. "superficial" was the word that kept popping into my head. It just looks like he's cherry picked quotes out of a lot of other papers and compiled a report. It's not Garnaut awful but it isn't a great paper...

mic-d

15th June 2011, 02:22 PM

That's a useful little article. I'm happy at least that they think population will stabilize, I didn't know that and thought it was destined to go on until we reach some calamity (which still looks possible even at 9B).

Nuclear is with us whether we like it or not, but I wonder if you factor in clean up bills for Chernobyl and Fukushima whether it is quite as cheap as half price? I don't know. Personally I can't wait until thorium reactors are perfected and old technology can be decommissioned.
I also think we should be asked whether we want nuclear power generation here in Australia and I think the outcome of that referendum should be linked to whether the Australian export industry of nuclear fuels continues. I can't rationalise how we might refuse nuclear power here but be happy to reap the windfall of digging the stuff up for others.:?
It will be interesting to see if Germany can make up the shortfall in energy since deciding to phase out nuclear power and also control it's output of carbon from outside the carbon cycle ie fossil fuels. What future for a country that manages on 'alternative energy ' only?

I also wonder whether you ever recoup the energy that goes into making solar panels. Does anyone know?

beer is good

15th June 2011, 03:51 PM

Back in the 1970's I read a fascinating piece written by an American engineer. The price of oil had gone through the roof thanks to greedy OPEC, and there was a call to put solar water heaters on the roof of every house in the US.

This engineer calculated that the energy (heat and electricity) needed to make the copper, aluminium and glass for solar heaters would exceed the amount of energy used by heating water with an oil fired heater. So he proposed making a solar water heater out of light weight concrete with (I think) tubes running up and down. He didn't take his idea any further as he had to earn a living as an aero engineer, but I was impressed that he had done the calculations.

Today, concrete is a dirty word as it is second after coal fired power stations for producing green house emissions.

Looks to me like we are stuck with oil for quite a while...

mic-d

15th June 2011, 04:15 PM

I also wonder whether you ever recoup the energy that goes into making solar panels. Does anyone know?
I did a little digging and came up with a few references, which I have only glanced at:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf (http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enrel%2Egov%2Fdocs%2Ffy04osti%2F35489%2Epdf&urlhash=_Dlj)
http://www.motherearthnews.com/energy-matters/dispelling-the-myths-of-solar... (http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emotherearthnews%2Ecom%2Fenergy-matters%2Fdispelling-the-myths-of-solar-electricity-energy-payback%2Easpx&urlhash=6hYl)
http://www.watercrisis.org/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf (http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewatercrisis%2Eorg%2Fapollo2%2Fknapp%2FPVEPBTPaper%2Epdf&urlhash=iyTL)

Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture (http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm)
On a superficial view it seems quite positive. Thin film arrays may pay back in as little as a year. Usual caveats - I don't know what I am talking about...etc etc.

damian

15th June 2011, 04:16 PM

For what it's worth:

I have read several analyses (sp?) of silicone photvoltaics, some indicating the net negative energy you mention, some demonstrating a large positive. I don't know but my feeling is that they are probably a net positive. It is true that recovering pure silicone and making it into the crystal sheets needed for them is energy intensive. Like most proper analysis it's complicated and I don't have the time and resources to look into it properly.

Chernobyl was much hyped in the media. It was obviously a disaster, but not nearly the catastrophy the mongers of panic would have us believe. There were some tens of immediate victims, but cancer rates and birth defects amongst those exposed have trended close to wider averages. I am not trying to trivialise it, but I don't buy into media driven exageration, lies and hype.

A potential greater problem will be if the international community deems the source of uranium responsible for it's long term disposal. tha would bite us. I doubt the rest of the world cares if we use it ourselves or ship it to them.

I don't know much about thorium reactors. What I will say is this: generators don't care how they generate. They are in the business of making money so they devise a system to meet customer tolerance (not expectations, just enough to stop them going elsewhere) in reliability, quality and price.

The FACT is that coal is by far the cheapest option for most of Australia. If power could be generated reliably 24/7 at the same or lower price point than coal they would dump it like a hot rock(no pun intended). Nuclear obviously has popular resistance. You can argue a reactor is theoretically safe but on the other hand in private hands they will always find a way to stuff it up.

If the community accepts that pollution from coal plants is an issue then the government has options to make it unviable to use it, or to at least clean up the process. The latter has already been done with australian industry often leading the world on emmissions from coal power and steel making. This occurred due to government intervention. One common tool of the left is statment like "we've got to start fighting pollution" implying we haven't yet. A great lie. Many of you are old enough to remember the smog and acid rain of the late 70's. All those cities are now more populace than they were then yet pollution levels are generally lower. Not perfect but the fight has always been there be it air pollution, deforestation over hunting etc.

Which tool the government uses, carbon tax, cap and trade or legislation, is irrelevant. The fact is the community should be on board because no matter which way it goes if the government acts to reduce pollution you and me will pay for it, at the bowser, at the post office, paying the power bill and at the supermarket with the transport component of our shopping. How much it costs us depends on how well the government devises it's scheme. And if you think you'll get compensation forget it. It'll still impact in economic drag and taxes diverted to covering the anti pollution efforts.

The golden rule of government: We always pay. Always.

Note I make no judgement above about whether the pollution needs to be reduced. I think it should, I think alternatives should be properly reaserched and implemented, but I think it should all be undertaken in a rational way, not the frantic political lunges we've seen.

Returning to the origional post though, it's all pretty much irrelevant given the polulation and development issues. It's like trying to stop a mudslide with a fork...

2c.

mic-d

15th June 2011, 04:43 PM

I wasn't referring directly to the health effects of Chernobyl since I suspect it was overstated, based on what I've seen and read - such things as the bbc horizon program for instance. Although I have a foot in both camps because I can also believe that a whitewash has been perpetrated to protect the international nuclear industry (yes possibly a conspiracy theory but I don't k.n.o.w. Why for instance does there seem to be a blackout on coverage of Fukushima by the commercial networks in Australia :shrug: ) I'm talking costs of cleanup, quarantine of arable land and associated loss, cost of relocation of residences, business and industry etc. loss of export markets etc. It all adds up. I wonder if those projected costs are included in the cost of nuclear electricity?
True, many many more people die from the coal industry and health impacts than from nuclear, but in the back of ones mind is the vision that if it goes wrong, (old technology)nuclear can do it more spectacularly than a coal, wind or solar power station. Although I just remembered, many many thousands have died from hydroelectric generation, but do those figures get bandied about?
footnote- I am pronuclear, but not for an industry such as in Japan where Tepco has been exposed for a number of cover-ups.

ColW

15th June 2011, 05:30 PM

I've read a little on specific "social costs" of Chernobyl, displacement of the locals and such and how it pretty much mirrored the early implications of european settlement on
indiginous populations, depression, alcoholism, even sexual promiscuity?? Many have returned and continue to live off the land despite the warnings to their health. As for the contaminaton area and costs etc there are many varied accounts.

Australia has I believe made some inroads into nuclear waste disposal or rather storage techniques which includes fusing radioactive matter into glass inside stainless steel then burying it deep within the earth, but it's India I believe that's leading in the field of "fast" and thorium technology with the aim of reducing the waste from the industry. From a very, blurry and well into the future outlook, depending on how your imagination works, it's probably not a good idea to have this stuff sitting around.

But returning to the original post which deals specifically with the planets carrying capacity of humans, i've seen some varying opinions on this as well, some have suggested 1.5B others 20, perhaps the smart money will be an investment in pharmaceuticals, distilleries and condoms to placate the masses.

Harry72

16th June 2011, 12:37 AM

Here's where we are at with Thorium (http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/3199-meet-emma-shes-going-to-save-the-world-and-cure-cancer.html).
If all major government's world wide put effort into this instead of stupid policies like "carbon tax" that wont work we all be better off :D

damian

16th June 2011, 10:31 AM

mic-d,

Good, well stated. I wasn't rying to whitewash chernobyl, it's just that the anti nuc lobby have made wild claims that as far as I know are unsubstantiated, and the media always looking for a beat up love to reiterate the "thousands of children dead and ridden with cancer" headlines.

It is very hard to get to the truth when pretty much every source of information has an agenda.

The AGW thing is a bit like the gun law thing we had in the late 90's. The "anti-gun" lobby wanted to portry us all as homicidal maniacs who wanted free reign on guns, in reality most were "normal" family people who just wanted laws that would achieve something. Likewise the AGW believers want to portray us as champions of pollution, whereas in reality all we want is enviromental policies that will achieve measureable pollution reductions, real outcomes for real problems.

I'll buy into anything that someone can show me will work, but it's got to be rational.

mic-d

16th June 2011, 01:37 PM

mic-d,

Good, well stated.

Why do I feel like Darth Vader has just been complemented by the emperor on his conversion to the dark side!:D:D:D:;:;:;

Although your thread is about the global problem, may I ask about more local matters to do with energy sources?

Our average daily electricity usage peak + off peak is around 15KWh and when we had a climate smart monitor installed the guy said if we were interested in a 1.5KWh solar array it would be suitable for our usage. Whats the calculation to convert daily average usage into the appropriate size panel for full offset?
More importantly and its my main question... He went on to say that if we converted to bottled gas for the hot water that our daily daily electricity usage would drop to just over 10KWh (we use about 4.4KWh for hot water)... and we'd get even better value from the solar. So I went looking at running cost for an instant gas hot water system (not start-up, just gas supply) and it works out worst case at about $144 per quarter (rough gas usage for a household of four for 3 months.)

So to my question... we currently pay about $45 per quarter for hot water at the moment, what would be the possible incentive to change to gas and start paying up to $144 per quarter? I really thought that gas running cost would be cheaper but unless I made a mistake it appears much more expensive.

[edit]** just to add some more info... we use 400KWh per quarter on hot water which is 1440MegaJoules of energy. LPG has 50.5MJ/kg (Origin Co figure) so we would use about 28.5kg of LPG/quarter, perhaps a little less because it would be an instant hot water system and in a more central position in the house. So at $3.20/kg gas we would pay about $91.20 per quarter for gas rather than the current $45 for electricity.

beer is good

16th June 2011, 02:26 PM

:whs:

damian

16th June 2011, 04:08 PM

Chuckles. Despite what some of you may think I'm not necessarily sith or jedi. I just realised back in the 90's before Al Gore and the church really got going that a scam was brewing, and as I watched the whole ugly thing unfold I saw each lie as it was perpetrated and got more and more resentful...anyway...

You get about 6 hours a day equivalent generation depending on weather and location. So a 1.5 would generate about 9 kWh per day provided it was north facing unobstructed by shadow and kept clear of twings leaves etc. Covering part of one cell can wipe out up to 40% of your generation.

If your willing to do some work you can overspec the inverter on the official install and buy cells at $1/watt from the us, get some aluminium glass and fibro (or similar) and make your own panels. Labor intensive but vastly cheaper.

Gas is problematic.

Natural gas prices have been low until recently because we lacked the infrastructure to export anything like our production. You were essentially buying it for the supply cost. A couple of years ago origin and a few others started signing big export contracts adn the price is creeping up. Eventually it'll skyrocket when those come on line fully. LPG will suffer the same problem when excise is imposed on it. As an aside petrol is the oppsite effect same problem. We lack infrastructure at ports to import petrol, the little we have is held largely by the major companies so competition is stifled. A really practical way for the government to bring down fuel costs is to build those facilities and rent them to importers at a PROFIT. Sigh....

Analysing gas is a bit problematic, your comparing an instant heater to storage etc. There are huge variables for cost between bottled (I assume your looking at that) and piped. Most people I know who've installed bottled serviced gas have been really unhappy at the cost. My only personal experience was years ago on piped in sydney and it shunted my bills skyward because I used so little energy I was paying the entry rate on both the gas and electricity.

Be aware if you go solar people I know have had issues with the smart meters and wrong bills and have invested months of calls and hassle to try and sort it.

I hope to go off grid if I ever manage to sell up in Brisbane and go bush, and I've looked into the options, but it ain't cheap to set up and none of it is easy unles you have deeper pockets than mine.

2c....

Forgot to add, shop around on soalr prices vary hugely, there is a good thread here somewhere about inverter brands. Use the forum Luke.....

mic-d

16th June 2011, 06:21 PM

You get about 6 hours a day equivalent generation depending on weather and location. So a 1.5 would generate about 9 kWh per day provided it was north facing unobstructed by shadow and kept clear of twings leaves etc. Covering part of one cell can wipe out up to 40% of your generation.

That easy calculating it huh?... We have a perfect north-facing pitched roof...

If your willing to do some work you can overspec the inverter on the official install and buy cells at $1/watt from the us, get some aluminium glass and fibro (or similar) and make your own panels. Labor intensive but vastly cheaper.

Would it be legal to buy the cells from the US, construct the panels and have the sparky wire it in I wonder? I might speak to my sparky. Where would you source the panels from?

Analysing gas is a bit problematic, your comparing an instant heater to storage etc. There are huge variables for cost between bottled (I assume your looking at that) and piped. Most people I know who've installed bottled serviced gas have been really unhappy at the cost. My only personal experience was years ago on piped in sydney and it shunted my bills skyward because I used so little energy I was paying the entry rate on both the gas and electricity.

Yes looking at bottled but as I've discovered it could be up to twice the running cost of electric and will be around $2k install.

Be aware if you go solar people I know have had issues with the smart meters and wrong bills and have invested months of calls and hassle to try and sort it.

Forgot to add, shop around on soalr prices vary hugely, there is a good thread here somewhere about inverter brands. Use the forum Luke.....

Looking around now ... I can't escape my destiny...

.

Sebastiaan56

16th June 2011, 06:44 PM

mic-d

16th June 2011, 07:56 PM

damian

17th June 2011, 11:24 AM

I didn't make myself clear. Buy an off the shelf 1.5 system or whatever you want, get your rebates or whatever they are, buy a package with an upspec inverter.

THEN after all the paperwork and such is done buy some B grade cells from the US Europe or wherever and make some more panels, another kw or 2 and wire them in. Photovoltaics are ultra low voltage so no licence necessary, the inverter is your bridge between 240 and 12/24 whatever you wire for.

Of course there are bigger savings to be had doing the install yourself. Compare the prices:

sma, aurora inverter, Solar, Gadgets items at low prices on eBay.com.au (http://electronics.shop.ebay.com.au/Electronics-/293/i.html?LH_PrefLoc=2&_nkw=%28sma%2C%20aurora%29%20inverter&_trkparms=65%253A2%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1&rt=nc&_catref=1&_dmpt=AU_Solar&_sc=1&_sc=1&_sticky=1&_sop=15&_trksid=m194&ssPageName=STRK:MEFSRCHX:SRCH)

to the advertised prices in Australia. You could make ALL the panels and install them yourself and get an electrician to install your inverter and wire it all up. Probably a big saving but I think how the rebates work now it'd be a misery of paperwork. You need to decide how much your time is worth.

You also need to understand clearly the difference between panels and cells. The cells are individual tiles of silicon that generate a tiny voltage each, panels are arrays of cells encased usually in toughened glass a frame and some backing. The cells are soldered together with short lengths of wire and built into the "boxes" to make them panels.

Have a good read there are many many sites that demonstrate how.

Anyone got any good links to bromide battery suppliers in aus, or similar technologies ? It's the storage side I'm still not settled on...

ColW

17th June 2011, 01:37 PM

There's a company in Brissy at Seventeen Mile Rocks it produces zinc-bromine battery systems. Can't find any direct links

col.

mic-d

17th June 2011, 06:43 PM

Thanks Damian, I got what you meant but used the term panel when I meant cell...:doh:
Now there's a whole other list of things for me to spend time on...:)

Bushmiller

17th June 2011, 09:03 PM

The silliest thing is the lack of funding for thorium powered reactors there is no need for any alt power at all...

No, no,no Harry it is not silly at all. You obviously don't realise that you can't make a nuclear warhead using thorium:wink::D.

While there are countries out there that have nuclear power and no nuclear weaponry, there are no countries with nuclear weapons that don't have nuclear power.

It is a progression, albeit quite a big one. For an atomic reactor the fuel needs to be enriched around 4%. For a bomb the enrichment is around 97%.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

17th June 2011, 10:32 PM

There are a few harsh realities out there which we have to acknowledge.

No single power souce is going to be ideal.

We, and others around the world, have existing power generators. Without these generators we would not enjoy life as it is, particularly in the so-called "western world." (occassionally, but probably erroneously refered to as the civilised world).

It is frankly childish to think that with a stroke of the hand we can eliminate the existing infrastructure. The consequential misery that would occur from that would far outstrip the arguable effects of polution and global warming.

Unfortunately "facts" are masked by unscrupulous political and entrepreneureal interests. Everyone is pushing their own agenda. Even you and I to a lesser extent. very few of us push a cause guaranteed to cost us in the immediate future. (If you doubt this consider the petty issues on which political elections are fought, won and lost.)

I must now declare a threethings to you. ('Cos someone's bound to blow the gaff anyway:rolleyes:.)

I work as a control room operator in a relatively modern (supercritical), privately owned power station, which is thermally fired (black coal.)

I do not like nuclear power as it currently exists nor do I like the way it's proponents gloss over the pitfalls as if they are insignificant. Someone commented on the cost of clean up from the latest Japanese debacle. Have a look at the costs involved at Three Mile Island and how long it took and that was nowhere near the same level of catstrophe.

I really like the concept of solar power.

Having stated my prejudices, I think that we have to stay with existing power stations. Even allowing for my self interest, I just don't see how we could realistically dispense with them. Natural attrition will take care of the older station that are inefficient. What we should be doing is ensuring that any power station built from now on passes the "clean" test. I don't quite know what that will be.:(

Just on solar. No australian government has got serious. There is the potential for any house in australia to become a mini power station. You don't have to reclaim land or get approval. Just wack the panels on the roof and generate while ever the sun shines, which out here is pretty good. It won't supply all our needs, but we have the existing generators to easily cope with the shortfall and for when the sun doesn't shine.

This is not the be all and end all, but it does give us breathing space to develop new technologies and strategies. Btw I don't think you should hold your breath on "clean" coal. Take CO2 sequestration. Pilot plants had been created in VIC, NSW and QLD. I heard the other day (it may be rumour) they have been canned. They only captured a very small percentage and that cost more electricity to do than if they had just let the CO2 escape.

Why hasn't solar happened?

There is no consistency in the deals offered.
They may not be for very long periods and what happens after that?
They are still expensive in the capital stage
They are often for small amounts (1.5kw) and any upgrade is not at the same return
The average household probably requires between 5kw and 7kw per hour on average. (Have a look at your bill, it tells you the daily consumption.)

My own belief on solar failure is because the governments are not really serious about providing incentives on a conssistent long term basis. This is because they get nothing (revenue) from it and in fact it costs them.

Regards
Paul

damian

18th June 2011, 05:05 AM

Disturbingly Paul I agree with you 100%.

Bushmiller

18th June 2011, 10:07 AM

Disturbingly Paul I agree with you 100%.

Damian

"Disturbing!" You've hit the nail right on the head:(.

Regards
Paul

Sebastiaan56

20th June 2011, 07:27 AM

Well there wont be many campaign donations coming from us solar powered roof people. Of course the electricity generators and distributors may be happy about that.

On an aside Fukushima was a melt through see Japan raises spectre of Fukushima 'melt-through' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/08/3238720.htm) I wonder how many pollies and commentators are hammering the NIMBY's now...

mic-d

24th June 2011, 04:15 PM

Bushmiller

24th June 2011, 04:28 PM

Had a solar company out today and was told the site wouldn't be suitable due to neighbouring tree blocking the afternoon sun, so it looks like my short foray into alternative energy has died an early death.

Mic-d

:(.

Did you get as far as finding out the capital cost cost, size of unit, payment for feeding back into the grid and length of contract or was it all cut off at the knees by the tree?

Regards
Paul

mic-d

25th June 2011, 09:26 AM

Mic-d

:(.

Did you get as far as finding out the capital cost cost, size of unit, payment for feeding back into the grid and length of contract or was it all cut off at the knees by the tree?

Regards
Paul

I should say, he was the first of three companies chosen by a 'broker' I contacted who filters out all the shonky dealers and so the prices are above others. I contacted Origin and could get a 1.5KW system until the end of June for $3990, however, they were keen to take my money and not check the suitability of the site:roll:

He did give me a spreadsheet of cost, payback time etc. For a 1.52KW system it was $5795 and a payback period of just under 7 years (based on current tariffs) and a 3KW system $11295.
(caveat as I said, n=1, I'm sure there are cheaper companies)

There is an interesting set of cells in the spreadsheet which I will have to follow up on. They show the split of power to the house and to the grid.

For example the 1.5KW unit splits 400W to the house during the day and 1120W to the grid, the 3KW unit splits 400W and 2600W respectively.

I do not know if this is tuned by the inverter/meter etc and is adjustable or not, but it could be important for future offset if/when the feed in tariff matches the buy cost. I'll try and clarify today.

mic-d

25th June 2011, 11:41 AM

Ok had some clarification. The split in power is purely an estimate of the daytime use /hour for their calculations. And they also base their calculations on a fairly conservative 4.3hrs sunshine/day.

BEKKY

25th June 2011, 06:19 PM

Hi Mic-d
I had 3kw system with 16 panels installed on 19th March.
The cost to me was $11750. I am due to get a quarterly bill for my use any day now.
I'm interested to see the result. The days are short now and we have had some cloudy weather. The best day in mid March they were generating around 2.5kw.
Origin is my supplier and they have installed a new smart meter.
It gives about 4 different readings so I can't make sense of it.
The new bill when it arrives may help. :?:?:?
Regards Keith.

damian

27th June 2011, 12:50 PM

The meters are probably usage tar 11 tar 33 (or whatever tarrifs your on) and those again on what your generating, ie full price power, discount (for hot water etc) and the feed in totals.

Some friends had the smart meters and being an electrician he spotted the problem right away. They had mis programmed so instead of subtracting the generated power they added it. Took months to sort.

There is a mob on TV right now advertising a bigger system for what looks like a good price, tru value solar or something. Check the inverter brand, doesn't matter if the panels suck but you need to get a decent inverter.

Paul, I'd get some more quotes....yes a tree is a problem, a big problem, but it still might be doable.

If your on a gas main you can always start saving for a bluegen. :)

Of course the gas might be coming from a coal seam operation in a few years, and I wouldn't give those $%^& my money...

hughie

30th June 2011, 09:27 PM

Disturbingly Paul I agree with you 100%

wot he said :2tsup:

Also I see that a lot of solar units are quite small 1.5kw which is the same size as my hot water kettle, seems a tad small to be effective.

For me we are all at work during the day and home at night so benefits are not so great and given that the NSW govt has a sunset clause on the payments etc. The returns have a limited life.

My thinking is I would need to go in for some sort of storage system to gain any real benefit, and these systems are perhaps the dearest of all and would be a burden on my current finances.

damian

1st July 2011, 01:08 PM

Yes but your kettle doesn't run all day non stop.

RETIRED

1st July 2011, 03:58 PM

Yes but your kettle doesn't run all day non stop.You haven't been here. :roflmao:

artme

1st July 2011, 07:57 PM

When i thought about the installation of PV panels on the roo fI approached my neighbour about lopping the large Lilly Pilly trees on his southern boundary.

He was only too happy to oblige as they were also a bother to him as they filled his gutters ith leaves.

W e shared the cost and are both Happy!!

BRADFORD

8th July 2011, 02:17 PM

wot he said :2tsup:

Also I see that a lot of solar units are quite small 1.5kw which is the same size as my hot water kettle, seems a tad small to be effective.

For me we are all at work during the day and home at night so benefits are not so great and given that the NSW govt has a sunset clause on the payments etc. The returns have a limited life.

My thinking is I would need to go in for some sort of storage system to gain any real benefit, and these systems are perhaps the dearest of all and would be a burden on my current finances.

It appears you don't understand how this works - consider it as an investment
A 1.52kw system costs $5750
Output per day is likely to be 1.52x 5.5 x 85% = 7.106 units
Where 1.52 is the system size, 5.5 is the peak sunshine hours per day (this is about average for southern Australia) and 85% is the efficiency of the system.

7 unit per day output is an annual output of 2555 units
If we assume your feed in tarriff is the same as you pay for power say 21cents per unit
(this varies from place to place) the system will make $536.00 per year whether you use it or feed it into the grid.
That is 9.3% return on your investment, Try and get that at the bank

Assuming your 1.5 kw kettle takes 5 minutes to boil, you could boil it about 55 times a day on the system output

If you are connected to the grid, use the grid as your storage system, it is the cheapest and most efficient

Rattrap

9th July 2011, 10:35 AM

Well said Bradford. :2tsup::2tsup:
If fact i was reading an online article where a financial adviser was saying that solar panels were a better investment than shares & a hell of a lot better than banks! Add to that the added value to the home & you've got a true winning investment.

Bushmiller

17th July 2011, 06:50 PM

The problem I see with regarding a solar instalation as an investment is that this stance does not take into account depreciation of the equipment and resale value at the end of it's life, which would presumeably be zilch.

An investment in the bank would still be worth it's nominal value at the end of the same period, although I accept that in real terms the same sum of money would now buy less.

Please believe me when I say I would dearly love to go along with this line of thinking as for me solar will be the ultimate answer, but not just yet. The technology is still not far enough advanced and price wise probably four to five times the cost of thermal.:(

I, as those of you who have read previous posts of mine, am a big advocate of solar power and my idea was indeed to turn every household into a mini power station. It seemed the way to go, but just recently the concept received a king hit.

When maintenance is required on power lines, isolation is povided at a particular point, which is normally at a local switchyard. The circuit breaker and associated isolator are opened and the line is earthed so work can proceed safely.

However, if electricity is being fed into the grid from domestic installations there is now a back feed and that too needs to be isolated. I am not sure how this is achieved at the moment, but in principle each and every household has to be disconnected from the system. I am sure you can see the potentially enormous problem. I don't suppose that for one moment it is insurmountable, but it is another hurdle to be overcome.

Finally there is another question. How long will subsidies be available for these solar instalations? Currently I have seen price up to 44c per kwh being offered. Compare this to the 18c to 22c we pay for electricty and the 3.5c the power generators receive. How long will these very elevated prices continue? Most contracts are for a limited period.

Regards
Paul

BEKKY

18th July 2011, 06:15 PM

Christopha

18th July 2011, 07:16 PM

Looking at wind, apparently a much cheaper install than solar and prettyt good here on the coast

Bushmiller

18th July 2011, 08:45 PM

Bushmiller,
As I understood it from my solar installer if there is no power in the grid system the solar system automatically closes down as a safety measure.
This may or may not be correct. :?:(
Regards,
Keith.

Keith

I hope you are correct with that as it would solve the problem and certainly makes sense. I will make enquiries.

Thank you

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

18th July 2011, 08:55 PM

Looking at wind, apparently a much cheaper install than solar and prettyt good here on the coast

Christopha

I think wind has a part to play and it may well be cheaper, but it is less reliable (I am told that you can only rely on 10% of a wind generator's capacity as overall this is what it will produce.) Wind generators are noisey, an eyesore and take up space. As usual nothing is perfect.

Solar does not produce at night, but there is a technology where heat from the day can be put into salt beds and used to generate steam for the night. This is not at a stage of development where it is viable.

To my mind there will be a long transition period from thermal power to so-called alternative energies. I don't see that it can be any other way. It will be a rocky road too.

Just a parting comment. There is a great deal of hype about gas fired stations, but remember that gas also produces CO2. Not quite as much as the most efficient of coal-fired but still a huge quantity.

Regards
Paul

.RC.

19th July 2011, 10:17 AM

Problem is people in general have no idea where power comes from... They flick on a switch and see light but make no correlation between that light and how it comes to be..

They seem to be under the delusion that renewables are cheap, plentiful and will work at 100% all day every day regardless of season...

woodbe

19th July 2011, 12:59 PM

Getting back to the original Straight Dope article for a minute, one wonders why it makes no mention of Solar?

If you look at the current installed PV and solar thermal capacity, it's significant, and growing : List of renewable energy topics by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_renewable_energy_topics_by_country)

At the end of 2009, cumulative global photovoltaic (PV) installations surpassed 21 GW[5][6][7] and PV power stations are popular in Germany and Spain.[8] Solar thermal power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 MW SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert.[9] The world's largest geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW.[10] Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel.[11] Ethanol fuel is also widely available in the USA.

Alternative energy is not the complete answer as it sits at the moment and perhaps it never will be, but it has never been given much more than lip service and token support in this country. If we are ever going to have significant alternative energy capacity it will need compelling long term policy space and capital expenditure. All this start/stop solar rebate/FIT nonsense is ridiculous and a perfect example of how not to do it - we still have Australians in one state able to get 60c/kWh and others elsewhere unable to get as much as their marginal kWh cost back for energy exported!

woodbe.

Bushmiller

19th July 2011, 10:11 PM

Bushmiller,
As I understood it from my solar installer if there is no power in the grid system the solar system automatically closes down as a safety measure.
This may or may not be correct. :?:(
Regards,
Keith.

Keith

I have made further enquiries.

You are quite right in your asertion and it is there as protection to the solar panels. As you may be aware, electricty canot be stored, but is generated as required, at least in AC form.

Therefore if the grid goes down for any reason the panels have an automatic cutout. However this is an insufficent isolation for maintenance work to proceed. In the old days a physical break was required in the transmission line, but today that is no longer the case. However isolation is still provided by an approved switch and it appears that there is one per house.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

19th July 2011, 10:17 PM

All this start/stop solar rebate/FIT nonsense is ridiculous and a perfect example of how not to do it - we still have Australians in one state able to get 60c/kWh and others elsewhere unable to get as much as their marginal kWh cost back for energy exported!

woodbe.

Woodbe

Absolutely. There is no continuity in contracts offered and no consistency between states. Mostly it seems like knee-jerk reactions and pure tokenism.

Just bear in mind that the mainstream generators earn for their power between 3c and 4c per kw/hr. We have to ask how long any government is either prepared or even able to pay from 22c up to 60c for solar power.

That is clearly unsustainable.

There was a time when Australia was a world leader in solar technology and nobody could persuade the government to contribute to research:(. So much of it went offshore.

Regards
Paul

woodbe

20th July 2011, 12:44 AM

if the grid goes down for any reason the panels have an automatic cutout. However this is an insufficent isolation for maintenance work to proceed. In the old days a physical break was required in the transmission line, but today that is no longer the case. However isolation is still provided by an approved switch and it appears that there is one per house.

Regards
Paul

Its not the panels that have the cutout, it's the inverter, and its a requirement for grid connect systems. The inverters have to match voltages with the grid for current to flow, and when the grid drops out, so does the inverter.

If you think about it, the electricity authorities would be pretty silly not to require effective isolation for the reasons you state.

There is also a requirement for isolation switches on the installation, near the panels - these isolate the panels from the inverter and would be used in home emergencies like fires, floods, etc.

Just bear in mind that the mainstream generators earn for their power between 3c and 4c per kw/hr. We have to ask how long any government is either prepared or even able to pay from 22c up to 60c for solar power.

Yes. Except that the FIT is paid at retail, not at the generator. Also, most of the state governments aren't subsidising the FIT at all, they are just allowing it to happen within the power pricing structure - all the solar FIT is paid for by power consumers. I _think_ WA is different, but not sure.

The price we pay for power is broken up between generator cost, transmission cost, losses cost between generator and consumer, and retailer margins. With Solar exports from a domestic installation, the transmission costs and losses are very small as the power is delivered very close to where it is consumed (next door, probably) As I understand it, Transmission costs lead the pack, followed by retail margins, then generation costs and then transmission losses.

So, exported PV power is equivalent to generated power + transmission costs and losses. I don't care for the retailers, happy to cut out the middle man :) - that should make it worth at least 16c/kWh even before we add in a margin for green power.

woodbe.

Bushmiller

21st July 2011, 04:33 PM

The price we pay for power is broken up between generator cost, transmission cost, losses cost between generator and consumer, and retailer margins. With Solar exports from a domestic installation, the transmission costs and losses are very small as the power is delivered very close to where it is consumed (next door, probably) As I understand it, Transmission costs lead the pack, followed by retail margins, then generation costs and then transmission losses.

woodbe.

Woodbe

I think you are right on the money with the split in costs. The problem is that the existing infrastructure has to be paid for (by consumers) on a continuing basis. The electricity retailers (Ergon, Origin, Energex etc) administer this side of the equation. Transmission lines, maintenance, substations, transformers and all the other trappings of electrical generation will not change significantly whilever you are connected to the grid and it is the grid that provides stability and continuity of supply.

PV solar power still does not perform when the sun goes down and indeed on cloudy days it is less efficient. We may not complain if the fridge heats and the food goes off, but what if the beer gets warm?:o.

Regards
Paul

woodbe

21st July 2011, 05:32 PM

PV solar power still does not perform when the sun goes down and indeed on cloudy days it is less efficient. We may not complain if the fridge heats and the food goes off, but what if the beer gets warm?:o.

To keep beer cool, all you need is a chest freezer modified to run at fridge temp (4C) Even winter daytime only solar would keep that cool 24/7. Chest freezers don't lose all their stored cold air every time you open them like a normal fridge, and they generally have better insulation as well...

Next question? :)

PV systems use the grid as a battery. We pump power into the grid during the day and suck it back at night.

woodbe

Bushmiller

21st July 2011, 07:23 PM

PV systems use the grid as a battery. We pump power into the grid during the day and suck it back at night.

woodbe

woodbe

You may have taken my facetious comment a little too literally:wink:.

In a way you have answered my next question with the statement above. To import electricity at night or indeed any other time your demand exceeds the capacity of your solar system, you need the existing infrastructure.

That is why you are not going to see a reduction in your electricity tarrif. In fact it is going to go up as a result of the push for renewable energy, but probably nowhere near as much as the scaremongerers would have you believe.

Regards
Paul

woodbe

21st July 2011, 07:43 PM

citybook

21st July 2011, 10:21 PM

Hi Bushmiller,
I'm not very far away from you, and our 1.5kw grid feed system does seem to work.

We installed it during the last billing cycle, so it hasn't run the full 3 months - even so we consumed $190 of Ergon's power and exported $120 of solar power.

In Queensland the feed in tariff is 44c while the consumer tariff 11 is 19.41c - this means that a kwh sent out is worth twice as much as a kwh consumed. With politicians in charge this could change at any time...

So it's not just replacing Ergon's power with solar - there's a factor of 2 in the pricing.

The other thing is to get cunning about when you use your power - try to limit daytime consumption. If you run (say) the washing machine on a sunny day, then first it will try to draw power from the inverter - then if more power is needed then the balance comes from the grid. So power you would have sold for 44c is getting consumed by your washing machine. But if you run the washing machine at night, then it will draw all it's power from the grid at 19.41c - and during the day the solar will export all it's power at 44c - so you are making more from the solar in this scenario.

Regarding the earlier comments about using DIY panels. With a grid feed system the solar panels are connected in series, so they are not low voltage any more - ours puts out up to 380VDC - needs to be treated with care. Another thing is that the home builder can't get the same weather seal around the cells that the store bought ones have - so DIY panels are not likely to last as long as commercial ones.

Cheers, Bob.

Bushmiller

21st July 2011, 10:40 PM

Paul,

What can I say, I'm a very literal kind of guy. :)

I agree that we will not see a reduction in energy tariffs. Apart from wanting to do something about our carbon footprint, this was the main reason we installed PV at home: to drive a truck through our power bills.

All I can say is that it's working. :D

Really, the only way to see a complete and permanent reduction is to disconnect, but this would be very expensive and probably the natives would get extremely nervous.

woodbe.

woodbe

I am with you in principle and I have to say you have done something about it as opposed to just talking about it and theorising like me.

I am afraid my practical side comes into play and my brain overrules my heart. I still believe in solar power and I hope to see the day when it reaches greater than 50% of power we produce.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

21st July 2011, 10:45 PM

Citybook

It's good to see you on the forums Bob: Welcome.

I understand the way you are managing your electrical useage and it is exactly the way to go. In fact these systems particularly suit households where nobody is at home during the day. Actually if you grab one of woodbe's chest freezers, you can probably reduce your weekday daytime consumtion to zero:wink:.

True words spoken in jest there.:D

Regards
Paul

jredburn

22nd July 2011, 08:11 AM

Bushmiller

22nd July 2011, 10:23 AM

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_cowley_fusion_is_energy_s_future.html (http://www.woodworkforums.com/energy%20sources)

this is a talk by one of the people that knows what he is talking about and what the state of nuclear power actually is.

Jredburn

Thank you for bringing us back to the nuclear element. Your link when I tried it was broken but I found a u-tube vid with Steven Cowley. An interesting man.

His forecast was that for the future eletrical power would come from either:

Solar
Nuclear Fision
Nuclear Fusion

His particular barrow was for nuclear fusion. A very worthy aspiration and although they have succeeded in the achieving a reaction they have not made power with it and neither have they produced the reaction without putting more power in than has come out.

I think at the moment it might be more unrealistic than clean coal. A comment he made pointed to the limited reserves of uranium. I saw a reference that said at the currrent rate of consumption easily mineable reserves would last 10 years before going to strata that had a lower yield.

However, for me that is acadaemic as nuclear fision is a no no until they can safely dispose of the waste. In fact include making the whole process safe.

Interesting that Steven Cowley made no mention of fision using thorium.

Regards
Paul

citybook

22nd July 2011, 12:26 PM

Bushmiller

22nd July 2011, 07:10 PM

I don't have much patience with the nuclear thing - I think the Fukishima experience has brought people back to earth - it is clear that the supporters of nuclear power have some vested interest in it.

The idea has been around for a few years that if we converted the world to run on nuclear power then we would run out of fuel within 10 years.

At least with coal I gather we have rerserves for more than 100 years.

It is amazing how the pro-nuclear people ignore things like not enough fuel - accidents - commercial nuclear fusion still a dream - and of course no viable waste storage technology.

But the biggie is that fossil fuels (and nuclear) must run out at some time - we have painted outselves into a bit of a corner - doesn't that suggest that next time we want an energy source that will go on indefinitely ?

Cheers,
Bob.

Bob

I think the first questions to ask in any of these discussions is do the persons concerned have an agenda, do they have a financial involvement and are they truely impartial?

Almost nobody is completely impartial.

For me the world is in transition regarding it's energy sources. We are already in transition although only just. The transition will be long and drawn out. 50 years perhaps until renewables dominate and many more before non-renewables are extinct.

Indeed transition is the only way it can happen. The conjecture is how it will happen.

Regards
Paul

damian

23rd July 2011, 12:58 PM

Jredburn

neither have they produced the reaction without putting more power in than has come out.

That's incorrect, they have managed a net power surplus the problem is sustaining it.

Having said that fission and fusion present 2 completely different problems.

You can liken fission to a train running downhill, you have to keep the brakes on or it runs away, fusion is the opposite if you back off the power it collapses and the radiation issues are significantly less and there is almost no waste to dispose of, whereas with fission it produces significant quantities.

So fission is a safety and disposal problem, fusion doesn't work, yet, and it is undetermined when they will build a working commercial reactor.

I don't believe in magic and I reject it as a valid argument for policy decisions. When rational argument fails all too often people resort to "X new technology will be developed to address the problem". If it's not close to flying now you can't assume it will ever be viable. Goes for everything from fusion to carbon sequestration and future solar technologies.

We are NOT going to run out of fossil fuels, never. What will happen is as the deposits drop in quality and go up in recovery cost the $ will push people to other sources.

The fact is we're heading for a massive energy deficit and people are going to be consuming every resource to meet it. We can try to tax coal to death here, but someone else will step in to burn it for us. We are literally like the boy plugging the dike with his finger while the whole dam wall collapses above us.

woodbe

23rd July 2011, 01:13 PM

If it's not close to flying now you can't assume it will ever be viable. Goes for everything from fusion to carbon sequestration and future solar technologies.

Agree with that.

I think the problem we face in Australia is that our governments have been chicken of getting behind alternative energy for too long. I don't know, but I suspect they run scared of the coal lobby.

Existing solar thermal (eg Areva/Ausra (http://www.areva.com/EN/solar-119/areva-solar.html) and plenty of others) has huge potential in Australia but we have been spinning our wheels for years. Ausra started in Australia, but moved offshore (US) because of lack of local support. And yes, solar doesn't run at night, but it could drive a freight train through daytime coal use if we chose to make the investment.

There's the catch, too: utility grade plants of all types need long term planning and take years from concept through to production. We really haven't even started.

woodbe.

damian

23rd July 2011, 01:36 PM

My partner has a wonderful term for the loony left/right: You've drunk the coolade. For the younger amongst you search on jonestown mass suicide.

Woodbe: I think you've inserted a conspiracy where human nature explains the behavior perfectly well.

Coal industry does not care about renewables and certainly wouldn't "lobby" anyone over them. The simple fact is that coal is the cheapest way to generate electricity by a country mile apart from nuceur (GWBush). Renewables simply aren't competition. Not cost competitive even at $23/ton and not base load.

Politicians will "back" anything that gets them re-elected. They don't care either because it's OUR money they are spending.

The simple fact is no one cares. I am sure lefties like to believe the whole population does, or at least should, sit about wringing our hands all day about the impending terrible horrible DOOM (whichever doom the lobbyists are trotting out today), but the fact is the swing voters in marginal seats, the only voters who count, only care about their mortgage repayments, bills and loading the landcruiser with the offspring on saturday morning to drive them to sports. The politicians know this so they don't care either.

Why do you suppose we are drowning in middle class welfare ? Why do you suppose KRudd's whole campaign was "working families" ?

Democracy at work.

And for all the wonderful hype about centralized solar plants generation at point of use is much better. The solar thermal plant you linked to isn't that great. They have a whopper in Spain and a change in the political winds will see it shut down I reckon.

As I've said before if your on piped gas search on bluegen. If they ever get production up properly I reckon they will fly.

It would have been nice if the government had just left solar rebates simple and the feed in tariff at retail equivalent, but then they don't get to make an announcement every 5 minutes.

As I say, no use whinging about politicians and policy, we (someone) hired them. The electorate is the problem, the parliament is the symptom.

woodbe

23rd July 2011, 02:38 PM

The solar thermal plant you linked to isn't that great. They have a whopper in Spain and a change in the political winds will see it shut down I reckon.

I linked a company... :)

The point is that utility solar thermal is one alternative energy option, but it takes investment and government support that has been lacking here. You think it's democracy, I think it's something, perhaps there's a coal lobby, perhaps there is not, but I don't know either way except to say that the something has stalled investment in utility grade power stations, especially from alternative sources for years in this country. We have some catch-up to do, especially if the population is going to grow as predicted.

SolarPV in the household is great for those capable of installing it with acceptable roof aspect. It also delivers excess power into the grid close the where it will be consumed, thereby reducing line losses. What it lacks is scale and effective efficiency monitoring and remediation that a large scale plant would bring with it.

Renewables are not competitive with coal yet. Granted. :) Its just too easy to dig up 100 million year old fossils and burn them like there was no tomorrow.

Hadn't heard of bluegen, but not on piped gas either :( Interesting that you can put a gas fired electricity plant in your backyard that is more efficient than Yallourn! Any idea what they cost?

woodbe.

citybook

23rd July 2011, 03:30 PM

Damian made the point that it's "...no use whinging about politicians and policy, we (someone) hired them. The electorate is the problem, the parliament is the symptom".

Boy, isn't that true.

But then it's immediately clear that if something is to be done about it - then we are the ones who have to do something about it. Absolutely no good hoping for the coal industry to change - or somebody to do some long term planning - or in fact anybody else to do anything else.

When you say renewables aren't competitive at $23 a ton, I don't think many energy sources can run at that price. The $23 looks like the carbon tax ? The coal price is closer to $123 a tonne - maybe we are going to have to pay at least that for any sort of fuel into the future.

And nuclear doesn't compete either unless you leave some of the costs out (like handling spent fuel).

The whopper solar thermal plant in Spain I suppose is Solar Tres ? This one
First 24/7 Baseload Solar Power Plant Now Fully Operational In Spain (http://www.the9billion.com/2011/06/30/worlds-first-247-baseload-solar-power-plant-now-fully-operational-in-spain/)

This web page is a good example of the crap we have wade through to get good information.

Notice they say it is the "First 24/7 Baseload Solar..." - well, I am fairly sure the truth is that official uptime estimate is 68% - which is not 24/7 as far as i'm concerned. And Solar Tres is modelled on the Solar I and II projects in the Mojave Desert in the late 70's - why did the Americans can those projects ? Does anybody know ? Must be a reason.

I think you can bet that if Solar II was a good thing then the Americans would be building more of them ? But no, they sold the "technology" to Spain.

I am not just rambling on here - this Solar Tres thing is a core assumption in the Green's 2050 Renewable Energy Plan.

Maybe people have noticed the influence the Greens have on the direction we are going ?

Well, maybe this sort of fruit loop thinking would become a little harder if more folks are talking and questioning.

Cheers,
Bob.

artme

23rd July 2011, 03:40 PM

Solar energy is excellent for heating water.

At present there are two types of solar hot water systems that I know of on the market. One is the simple copper pipes welded to a copper plate. The other is the evacuated tube type.

I want to know which is the cheaper to make and which is the more efficient in terms of heating the water.

citybook

23rd July 2011, 06:18 PM

About the Bluegen fuelcell - I believe it is a combination high temperature fuel cell and water heater - ie. it produces electricity and hot water. Don't know how much hot water you get, but it sounds like a great idea.

I think they have been around for 10 years or so - I think they are really more German than Australian, with their sales targetted for the subsidies available in Germany, which are better than here.

The electrical output is about 2kva or about 17,500kwh per year - they do emit carbon dioxide - and I don't know if they would be eligible for the feed in tariff because a diesel generator wouldn't be.

Wikipedia suggests operating costs of 6.0¢ per kWh based on $1.20 per therm for natural gas in the USA - here we are paying $1.52 a litre, so I think that would convert to about 32c/kwh.

I haven't seen a retail price - but it would have to be about $15,000 - say it lasted for 10 years, that is $1,500pa or say 8.6c/kwh.

So cost of the electricity would be about 40c/kwh. So if you got the feedin tariff you would make 4c/kwh or $700 a year, and your hot water would be free.

I definitely suggest more research before buying.

Cheers, Bob

woodbe

23rd July 2011, 07:03 PM

The whopper solar thermal plant in Spain I suppose is Solar Tres ? This one
First 24/7 Baseload Solar Power Plant Now Fully Operational In Spain (http://www.the9billion.com/2011/06/30/worlds-first-247-baseload-solar-power-plant-now-fully-operational-in-spain/)

This web page is a good example of the crap we have wade through to get good information.

Notice they say it is the "First 24/7 Baseload Solar..." - well, I am fairly sure the truth is that official uptime estimate is 68% - which is not 24/7 as far as i'm concerned. And Solar Tres is modelled on the Solar I and II projects in the Mojave Desert in the late 70's - why did the Americans can those projects ? Does anybody know ? Must be a reason.

Hey Bob, thanks for the link, I was wondering what Damian was talking about.

It appears that Tres has a salt storage battery to carry it overnight, so while its true the sun doesn't shine at night, the plant banks heat during the day and uses it when the sun goes down. I had read somewhere about salt storage, didn't realise that it was in operation.

I had a look for solar one and solar two, and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project). It would appear that Solar One was commissioned in 1982, ran until 1986 and was then upgraded into Solar Two which ran from 1996 until 1999 whereapon it was converted into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Who'd have thought? :) The whole lot was removed in 2009 and the site returned to vacant land.

Anyway, the answer to the question appears to be that Solar One and Two were test/demonstration plants, and their success apparently led to the commercial solar thermal plant in Spain, Tres.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the prod. :)

woodbe.

Bushmiller

23rd July 2011, 07:53 PM

When you say renewables aren't competitive at $23 a ton, I don't think many energy sources can run at that price. The $23 looks like the carbon tax ? The coal price is closer to $123 a tonne - maybe we are going to have to pay at least that for any sort of fuel into the future.

And nuclear doesn't compete either unless you leave some of the costs out (like handling spent fuel).

I think you can bet that if Solar II was a good thing then the Americans would be building more of them ? But no, they sold the "technology" to Spain.

Cheers,
Bob.

Bob

There is a wide range of coal costs to the various power stations. It depends primarily on how close they are to their coal source and the quality of the coal. Consequently a power station on the coast will normally have expensive coal primarily because of the transportation charges. A power station that sits on top of a coal mine will have cheap coal. The stations in the Latrobe valley in Victoria possibly have extremely cheap coal, because it is brown coal of little use for anything else. I don' t know the detail of their costs but it would not surprise me to hear of a cost less than $10 per ton.

The range of costs may well be less than $10 to greater than $100 per ton.

The carbon tax of $23 per ton is another issue which I will comment on in a separate post.

Nuclear power can't compete on price where the coal is cheap (it is very cheap in Australia). It only comes to the fore when other forms of power are non existant or expensive. or possibly where a country has an altogether different nuclear agenda.

A Nuclear station is at least twice the price of a thermal station and while the fuel is relatively cheaper, the maintenance costs are again much more expensive. That to my mind is all of no consequence when they can't dispose of the waste and we have times bombs like Fukishima (you have to be careful with the spelling on that one). I think they be well and truly Fukishimed!!

This link may help regarding the Solar projects around the Mojave desert.

Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert)

I worked with an American who was in charge of a solar thermal project (5MW) in the states, but I don't recall it's name. He said the cost was five times that of a thermal station, but that would have been around 15 years ago.

I believe Spain and germany are the leaders in solr installations. Much of it in Germany is domestic PV.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

23rd July 2011, 07:58 PM

Ooops. Managed to duplicate previous post in error. Moderators please delete if appropriate.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

23rd July 2011, 08:06 PM

That's incorrect, they have managed a net power surplus the problem is sustaining it.

Damian

I would love you to be right but.... From Wikepedia. Produced 65% of input power for 0.5 secsonds.

"As of July 2010[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fusion_power&action=edit), the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus) (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt) (21,600 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower)) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec."

As you say it is not a viable proposition in the foreseable future.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

23rd July 2011, 08:33 PM

The carbon tax is imposed upon users at the rate of $23/ton starting in July 2012 always assuming that is travels successfully through the two parliaments. That may still be a big "if."

The power generators refer to a carbon intensity, which is just a phrase to express how much coal they burn to generate 1MW of power. This is a factor of both the station efficiency and the type of coal they burn.

The worst fossil stations (probably burning brown coal and of older design) have an intensity of around 1.4: The best fossil fired stations fractionally below 0.9. The straight gas turbines 0.6 and the HRSG gas stations 0.4.

This last category is where the exhaust gases from the gas turbines are passed through a low pressure boiler to generate steam, which in turn drives a generator. One station I know of has three gas tubines and one steam turbine.

Gas of course still produces carbon emissions but, the potential is there to reduce the carbon emissions by half.

All good.

Maybe, maybe not.

The recent spate of gas stations came about not because of a vision for the future and an impending carbon tax, but by the desire to export gas. The pipe lines are under construction to pipe the gas to ports, such as Gladstone.

In the meantime the gas has to be developed (called ramp gas) to a sufficient level to make it a viable proposition. In come the gas-fired power stations. They are the benefactors of this "ramp" gas at extremely preferential rates. That is the situation at the moment.

When the gas reaches a sufficient volume the gas companies can choose to send the gas overseas or to the power stations at elevated prices. Now it is no longer the panacea. Add the fact that if used in Oz they will pay carbon tax, but not if they export and you can see that the pendulum has swung once again.

Regards
paul

citybook

23rd July 2011, 09:59 PM

Hey artme,
I agree - solar is really good for heating water. Yes, there are a few variations - each with some pros and cons.

If you are going to make it yourself (and why not) then I think the cheapest is neither of your suggestions.

You can make a water heater from the black flat tubing used for swimming pool heating for around half what you will spend on other methods - you have seen this stuff spread on a roof ?

People will tell you it’s not efficient - and they’re right.

But if it’s a couple of percent less efficient - and 50% of the cost - then you are ahead, aren’t you ?

Let me know if you are interested.

Cheers,
Bob

damian

23rd July 2011, 11:36 PM

Lots of bits and pieces so I'll do this manually:

woodbe:

I linked a company... :)

Yes I know, but the technology is well understood. Until I see some spectacular breakthrough which does not involve magic centralised solar thermal isn't practical.

What it lacks is scale and effective efficiency monitoring and remediation that a large scale plant would bring with it.

Yes great point. Only issues is that like an inefficient water heater or pool pump it's in the householders interest when it starts costing them to get it fixed.

Interesting that you can put a gas fired electricity plant in your backyard that is more efficient than Yallourn! Any idea what they cost?

There isn't really any fire, it's an electrochemical reaction, although I suppose it gets oxidised so I guess it's burning of a sort. They predicted once the factory was in full swing about $10k which isn't much more than a 1.5 PV system withouth the rebates. And of course bluegen generates 24/7
citybook:

Absolutely no good hoping for the coal industry to change

It is not the responsibility of the coal industry to develop renewables. It is their responsibility to obey laws set down by our democratically elected government and to make money for shareholders. If you don't like what they do (and I often don't like what corporations do) they should not be the target of your protest, unless they break the law. If the law fails it is the fault of the law makers, enforcers and the people who voted them there...Like the great way the qld government is handling coal seam gas mining.

When you say renewables aren't competitive at $23 a ton, I don't think many energy sources can run at that price. The $23 looks like the carbon tax ? The coal price is closer to $123 a tonne - maybe we are going to have to pay at least that for any sort of fuel into the future.

The $23/ton carbon tax is meant to make coal dearer in order to encourage investment by private companies in other methods, and is a tax collected by the government to pork barrel, er I mean compensate working families, and for the government to use to pick losers, er I mean winners in emerging technologies, and provide a slush fund to give cushy high paid jobs to labour mates, er I mean outstanding executives. Don't get me started on the schemes flaws or I'm likely to go all "global warming is a scam" on you...:)

By the way the expensive coal they talk about on TV etc is coking coal, for making steel. Steaming coal is the mud no one else wants. Ask me about coal, just ask me. I spent about a decade testing the stuff, I can put you into a coma blathering on about seams and layers and coking properties.. :)

It's black and it'll get you dirty from 30 feet.

Bushmiller:

I would love you to be right but.... From Wikepedia. Produced 65% of input power for 0.5 secsonds.

Wikipedia isn't always right. I can't remember if it was jet or the japanese one but they sustained positive output for a couple of seconds. I've been fascinated by fusion since the 80's when I was lucky enough to attend a seminar by one of the principle researchers at JET. Made what I was doing seem pretty trivial.

Ah there you go I see you've a quote about JET. I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

About the Bluegen fuelcell - I believe it is a combination high temperature fuel cell and water heater - ie. it produces electricity and hot water. Don't know how much hot water you get, but it sounds like a great idea.

The hot water is an optional extra, and it produces enough for an average family. I do to and I've been thinking of buying shares in the company for about 2 years now. Wouldn't want to rush in now.

I think they are really more German than Australian

The technology was developed at CSIRO ( my ex employer many years ago). Some people left and formed a private company. They started building the german plant about 18 months ago, as you said because of gov subsidies.

they do emit carbon dioxide

Next to none. Natural gas is nearly all hydrogen with some carbon impurities, so the carbon they emit is very small. The unit proper lasts indefinitely but you have to replace the fuel cells periodically. I don't understand your $1.52 liter calculation ? Is that gas or diesel your talking about ?

Apologies for any incorrect attributions above.

woodbe

23rd July 2011, 11:58 PM

Natural gas is nearly all hydrogen with some carbon impurities, so the carbon they emit is very small.

This must be another of those instances where wikipedia is wrong. Wikipedia says Natural Gas is mostly Methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) but can be used to create Hydrogen by splitting water.

Natural gas is a gas consisting primarily of methane, typically with 0–20% higher hydrocarbons[1] (primarily ethane). It is found associated with other hydrocarbon fuel, in coal beds, as methane clathrates, and is an important fuel source and a major feedstock for fertilizers.

...

For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 30% less carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and about 45% less than burning coal.[20] Combined cycle power generation using natural gas is thus the cleanest source of power available using hydrocarbon fuels, and this technology is widely used wherever gas can be obtained at a reasonable cost. Fuel cell technology may eventually provide cleaner options for converting natural gas into electricity, but as yet it is not price-competitive

So what is it, Hydrogen or Methane?

woodbe.

citybook

24th July 2011, 10:35 AM

Hi Damian,
you wondered how I worked out $1.52/litre for gas ?

I just read it off the bill - 104 litres for $157.95 is $1.52 a litre.

Please don’t think I am pleased about it, though. What do you pay for your gas ?

Also reading from the Orign account, 104 litres of LPG will emit 175.8kg of CO2 - that’s a little bit more than “next to none". The emissions from the Bluegen would be similar.

There isn’t any free hydrogen in the gas I get. Yes, the methane series are chemical compounds of carbon and hydrogen - but I have never seen them described as “nearly all hydrogen with some carbon impurities”.

So water (dihydrogen oxide) is mostly hydrogen with some oxygen impurities ?

I could get used to this.

Cheers,
Bob.

Bushmiller

24th July 2011, 11:02 AM

Solar, wind and water appear to be the sustainable renewables. Solar is the most attractive for me. It is the one with the most research, albeit pitifully small and there are downsides to it.

Large scale commercial plants occupy a huge area wether they are soalr thermal or solar voltaic. There is a 60MW plant proposed for Moree. It will have 150,000 solar panels and cover 160Ha. Another plant, 100MW at Ningen has 300,000 panels and covers a larger area. Incidentally the one at Moree looks like it is situated on good agricultural land, which is a shame if it is true. Food might eventually become more of an issue than energy resources one day, but that is another discussion.

So here is a suggestion. A while back (say 30 years) it was forbidden to have a water storage tank in your back yard. I know this because we moved to a new sub division in the Hunter Valley region in NSW and that is exactly how it was. Today where we live and in Toowoomba it is a requirement of every new building that it has a water storage tank. I think it may be around 20,000L, which is a reasonable size. I would not like to be relying on that if I entered a 6 month drought. 80,000L might get you by if you were very careful.

However, it is only intended to subsidise your useage and I am starting to digress here.

My point is that perhaps every new home should be designed with solar panels and connected to the grid. This just becomes part of the cost of house building the same as water storage, connection to sewerage and the electricity grid. Incentives would continue for existing dwellings too.

There is still the problem I raised in earlier posts of isolation procedure for maintenance, but I feel sure that could be resolved.

Regards
Paul

citybook

24th July 2011, 12:25 PM

Damian started this thread with a quote "Why don't we ditch nukes and coal ?"

Come on you blokes - at the moment there is as much interest in this topic as two of the others together.

So how about it ?

Could we do a brainstorm ? - ie. make additive posts and comments - don't waste time argueing with somebodies point unless it seems absolutely necessary ?

So I'll stick my neck out.

I think the lesson we should have learnt from fossils and nuke is that we need a energy economy that won't run out.

So take carbon (dioxide or whatever) - they say it is jiggering the environment.

So how can we turn it around ?

You know, 30 million years ago the sun shone on the swamps - the trees grew and died - fell in the swamp - and there you go, coal and oil.

And now we are digging it up - burning it - and would you believe it - the CO2 is causing greenhouse.

So what if we collected the CO2 out of the air using solar power - that is exactly what was going on in the swamps - photosynthesis.

Then we could use more solar energy to convert the CO2 to either carbon or methane - technology exists to do that.

Carbon can become a coal replacement - methane can be converted into synthetic petrol.

So we can continue using existing infrastructure.

So that gives us a CO2 neutral setup. All powered by the sun - and/or wind and/or water, if you want.

Fixes greenhouse and gives us a way to store solar energy - as carbon - burn it when the sun doesn't shine - gets rid of the argument that solar is no use at night.

So we move our energy economy into the natural carbon cycle - objective is to keep it balanced.

Ok, come on - who'se got some ideas ?

Cheers,
Bob.

damian

24th July 2011, 03:15 PM

Woodbe:

This must be another of those instances where wikipedia is wrong.

Your right I was thinking of town gas, sorry. Of course natural gas is methane because it is drawn off coal mines. I don't think too clearly at 10 pm.

I am prepared to believe I am wrong about fusion, but the memory of finding out they'd done a positive energy run is clear because I was so shocked when I heard it. I can't remember the source but I accepted it as reliable and I remember wondering why it wasn't headline news around the world.

Citybook:

See above. Do they really charge you $152 for GAS ??? sugar. That's a terrible ripoff. Thats LPG ? Is that bottled gas ? I think piped gas is cheaper.

Aside on gas: For many years we had cheap gas in Australia because there wasn't the infrastructure and the business case to export it. That all changed a few years back as several big gas terminals were built and the gas tankers became more common. We are now ramping up to world parity pricing on gas which will do for your cost of living pretty much what globalization has done everywhere else on your weekly bills. Good eh ?

So how about it ?

Actually I have thought that this thread has developed really well. Everyone has been respectful and the usual religious wars just haven't eventuated. Many thoughts people have expressed have interested me greatly. Lots of positive comments.

So what if we collected the CO2 out of the air using solar power

We have another technology for doing that, it's called wood. We used to grow it and cut it and burn it. Clever stuff that wood....

I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up. Many years ago people used to get excited every time they discovered you can run your car on hydrogen, ethanol or whatever. The often and repeatedly accused the oil companies of conspiracies to hide these technologies (200 mpg carburettor etc) to keep us dependent on oil. You see the lunatic fringe aren't a recent manifestation, go to a nexus conference if you really want to be scared. Anyway the point is that the reason we don't ditch oil is it's cheap and no one wants to pay double to drive their car, no one wants their electricity bill to double either. It all comes back to $. Fossil = cheap, everything else = dearer. Go ask your average punter what they choose. For that matter ask your electricity retailer how sucessful the premium "green" electricity option on your bill is. I don't know but I bet it's about 5%.

Like I said you don't need conspiracies, you just need to accept people would rather spend their money on beer, makeup, polished bullbars, pizza, beer than petrol or electricity, and corporations are reactionary psychopaths. McDonalds doesn't care if you order the burger or the salad, they just want your money. Origin doesn't care if your buying coal fired electricity or tofu derived gas from them as long as they get a markup.

Bushmiller:

Good thinking there. I did the sums during the height of the drought and found I could get by with 30,000 liters, but that was one person doing 195 kilo liters a year (as I recall). That would comfortable see me through winter at the height of the drought based on the amberly rainfall gauge which is the lowest within 50 miles of me and the one that dropped most during the drought.

My point is that perhaps every new home should be designed with solar panels and connected to the grid

We saw a few years back that spectacular discounts could be negotiated by communities who bought many identical systems and had them installed in a specific geographical area. Naturally the Qld state government killed off the community initiative by announcing a similar scheme which they ran for 5 minutes, stuffed up then dropped. At the time with federal rebates people were getting 1 kW systems for $500.

Rather than mandate it in new homes I would rather see a consistent and simple rebate on installation, then everyone could embrace it who wanted to.

I get stuff wrong sometimes, but at least I admit it when I do :)

Bushmiller

24th July 2011, 09:18 PM

This one is mainly in reply to Damian so I will try to comment starting with your last admission.

We have all fallen into the trap of believing a statistic which turns out to be a little less than true. Sometimes the misleading statement is deliberate and sometimes it is inadvertently untrue. As I mentioned previously you do have to look at the agenda of the individual or company making the statement.

It is a very human, very humbling trait to admit a mistake. All too often there is by others a tendency to home in and admisister the coup de gras:(. I find it difficult to admit I am wrong. It came as a terrible shock to me when my wife told me that although she loved me I wasn't perfect! I thought she had made a mistake:rolleyes:. Apparantly not:-.

What is making this thread interesting is that it is a reasoned debate rather than a ranting and raving match. Incidentally, it doesnt much matter whether fusion has produced positive power, or whether it was sustainable for 0.5 secs or 2 secs. It is clearly unsustainable and possibly the furthest away of alternate energy sources without an earth shattering discovery.

Now, a comment on methane which I understand to be one of the worst of the greenhouse gases. I am willing to be shot down on this as I have not done research and I am currently spreading soft mattresses around me!

My suggestion for solar panels on new houses was made because it is easy to do. (hence my water tank analogy). I did also say that I was in favour of retrospective installations encouraged by incentives, as indeed they are now. I would however like to see a more consistent and reliable offer on the board at least as a base line with companies able to offer better deals if they wished.

I bought a book a while back called Sustainable House, which was published first in 1998. It detailed the experience of a family in inner Sydney that wished to be sustainable. They did it and in that regard were a long way ahead of their time bearing in mind they lived in a terrace house.

They identified that they required between 5kw to 6kw per hour for their circumstances. I mention this because most of the solar schemes are for 1.5kw with an option to go to 3kw, but not always at the same beneficial tarrif. In the book the family only got their electricty useage down by using gas as much as possible.

Revisiting your original statement, "Why don't we ditch nukes and coal?" I don't see that we can cut them straight out of the equation. We have to enter the transition period that I mentioned and stop the further building of these type of installations whilever they compound out climate change problems. The ground rules will change if nukes can be made safe and their waste disposal issues resolved and for coal if so-called clean technology becomes a reality. Right now and for probably 10 or 20 years I don't see this as an option.

So back to Bob's brainstorming. I will stick to my domestic solar installation for the moment as the first stage of kicking away the energy reform. If a household makes a decision today, it can become reality within a few months, maybe less.

Lead time for a new power station is probably a minimum of 7 years with conventional stations and about five years for the alternate gas, solar, wind and other technologies as they are in principle more simple. That assumes an easy passage through the approval stages. Probably an assumption that shouldn't really be made.

It is one of life's ironies that the simpler something becomes the more expensive it is. Normally. In this regard it's a little like ladies' underwear. The simpler, and smaller it becomes, the more expensive:wink:.

Regards
Paul

damian

25th July 2011, 02:58 PM

First problem I see is that while a water tank adds $1000 to a house a solar system sans rebates is $8k plus. That's a signifigant imposition for someone hocked to the eyeballs to build the thing in the first place. I accept you may be able to soften that with various things from rebates to builders bulk buying.

By the way I looked into the bluegen gas consumption. 9.5 Mj/hr for 1.5 kW or 12.6 for 2. I don't have gas and don't know what piped gas costs but I found a price in the 2.1 - 2.7 c per Mj range. That makes bluegen barely better than break even on fuel consumption alone so a huge payback time on the cost of setup. Makes no sense whatesoever without generous feed in tarriffs. I am probably wrong as they have gone from 11 - 19c in the last few weeks. I am disapointed.

I am not going to argue the GW thing here. I don't accept CO2 and methane are a problem and I don't accept the catastrophy scenerio. I'll leave it at that.

I saw one of these lecture tours of sustainable people years ago and the most amazing thing to me was most of what they did I do as a matter of course and the rest various neighbours do. We don't do it for enviromental reasons but rather because it's cheap. I live on small acreage so waste water gets dealt with onsite and goes to help trees grow, all organic waste goes into the soil not the bin, that sort of thing. Just doesn't seem revolutionary to us but I suppose I don't live in a Mc Mansion on 400 sqm and spend $300 a time at Woolworths...

I am always happy to be corrected, but there is a condition. The correction has to be proven with hard data and repeatable methods. I don't buy "believe the expert", that's religeon not science.

woodbe

25th July 2011, 03:57 PM

Th bluegen could be good because you might replace or supplement an unreliable street power supply with a reliable one for not much of an overhead. Plenty of people in that boat. Even if you only got the standard 20c/kWh or whatever for feed-in, it might make sense to some people, but definitely not an option for all.

That you can generate power at home using gas at anything like the retail cost from the street. is pretty amazing.

As far as the solar option on new homes, its a nice idea, but until the price comes down it won't happen. What would be a great first step would be a building code requirement for roof aspect to maximise the solar potential on any new home.

I'm not going to argue the AGW thing either. If we engage in that it will only poison the thread. Same for name calling...

woodbe.

Bushmiller

25th July 2011, 07:14 PM

What would be a great first step would be a building code requirement for roof aspect to maximise the solar potential on any new home.

Excellent point. Probably a prerequisite for solar power, although a little difficult to administer. Possibly a rating system could be added to a new house, which would affect it's saleability.: A bit like electrical appliance efficiency.

Regards
Paul

artme

25th July 2011, 07:52 PM

G,day Bob. Thanks for your reply. I do know about building simple solar systems and about the flat black plastic pipe for pools. I have limited roof space and was wondering whether the evacuated tube heater is more efficient than the copper plate and pipe affairs.

I expect it will cost more but that may not , ultimately, be the point.

citybook

26th July 2011, 09:37 AM

Hi Artme,
well I am a big believer in simple things.

Have you looked at Build it Solar ? Lots of stuff you could use there.

For instance
"http//www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/RenwMagLargeRoofCollector.pdf"
is the system John Hermans built in Victoria - pretty amazing.

There is a study from Glascow
"www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2001/dimitrios_panapakidis.pdf" (http://www.%3Cb%3Eesru.strath.ac.uk%3C/b%3E)
about different sorts of solar heaters - some good technical stuff, but not Australia.

There is a big debate about the relative efficiency of evacuated tubes and absorber plate.
"http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Column/2008/08/01/Competing-Collectors-Part-2"
and a bit in previous columns about construction.

Notice, the man says "...be sure to remember, the numbers don't tell the whole story."

And because I am not sure if you understood that I was saying before that the EPDM swimming pool heater pipe can compete with the copper and evacuated tube collectors - here is a study published by CSIRO on the subject.
"http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/79/issue/6345.htm"
The paper is at the bottom of this page, and you will have to download the pdf.

I do go off a little about this - O'Keefe and Francis did this work in the late '80s - published it - and it has been soundly ignored since then. It really riles me when Oz is described as innovative and clever - what we do best is ignore really interesting science like this. End of rant.

From what you say about space the Hermans thing may be too big - but he gives detailed construction information that could be used anywhere.

Again, Build it Solar has a section on studies and information, and you will have to make your own mind up on this.

For my own two bobs worth, the glass tubes are fragile. Technically that is not included in an efficiency calculation - but for me it's a biggie.

For those links - I put them in inverted commas because the Woodies computer tried to help and scrambled the URLs - I checked them - they do work - you may have to copy and paste the links though - take off the quotes, of course.

Anyhow, hope this helps.
Cheers,
Bob.

citybook

26th July 2011, 12:27 PM

Bit more information on the BlueGen.

Harvey Norman is going to have an Australian agency, and the price is going to be around $45,000 - it only connects to piped natural gas - feed in tariff is not available.

It doesn't have the approvals yet to be connected as an appliance, but I gather that is in progress.

There is a website at
BlueGEN | Harvey Norman Solar (http://www.harveynormansolar.com.au/BlueGEN.html)
and they plan to post information there as they get it.

Cheers,
Bob.

citybook

26th July 2011, 03:26 PM

Now if I can just get a little spin going here, we aren't talking about global warming...

There was a comment "...methane which I understand to be one of the worst of the greenhouse gases..."

If we are to suppose there is a greenhouse effect which says that the surface temperature of the earth rises in response to increasing concentration of certain gases in the atmosphere.

Very broadly, the process for this is by way of fiddling with the rate that heat comes to the earth compared with the rate that heat leaves.

It is worth saying that if this didn't happen there most likely wouldn't be much life on Earth.

Then the supposition also is that water vapour contributes roughly 70% - CO2 roughly 20% - and the rest all together about 10%.

Maybe methane makes up half of the "rest" - so in that regard it is not too bad.

The problem is, it is thought that volume for volume the effect methane has is between 20 and 70 times greater than carbon dioxide. Big range there, but I think basically we aren't sure. But it is a fair bit more.

So yes, methane does have a significant greenhouse effect.

However.

What could be an interesting problem is the presence of methane hydrates in large deposits, usually under ice and usually under pressure. It appears that most of this has been there quite a while.

And, even though the science is sketchy, it would appear that there is a hell of a lot of methane there. Some people think more than the rest of our energy deposits put together ?? I wouldn't know.

The Methane Gun is, what happens if this methane gets released.

The ABC did a Ockhams Razor program on it
"http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2577170.htm"

Cheers,
Bob.

RETIRED

26th July 2011, 05:08 PM

The board is not "scrambling" the urls, it makes them a clickable link.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2577170.htm

PS. Keep climate change and global warming out of this thread. It is about alternate energy sources.

artme

26th July 2011, 08:06 PM

Thanks for that Bob>

I agree with your rant wholeheartedly.

Jst trot off to Turkey and Spain and see the use of solar heating there!

PV panels are mandated in Spain and there is no gubment subsidy!!

I have a very efficient , and almost new, Saxon hot water system, but i am still looking at solar.

damian

27th July 2011, 12:40 PM

PS. Keep climate change and global warming out of this thread. It is about alternate energy sources.

Well it is now. My origional post was about the total world energy requirments going forward.

citybook: It isn't a simple problem, which is why no one can offer nice neat answers to the many questions about climate and the effect of human activity. A big sudden release of methane may create a short term upswing in troposphere temps but other stuff will then happen to affect the longer term. EVERY question and EVERY issue in climate science is immensly complex and interlinked. There are already several threads on here where the issues was discussed. You could awaken one of those if you wish but I suggest you read over the old posts first.

Also I'd like to add to the praise of the idea about mandating north facing roof areas. Really good idea that. And thank you for the link to the solar projects.

artme

27th July 2011, 05:09 PM

Bushmiller

27th July 2011, 07:38 PM

The idea of north facing roof areas has played on my mind for many years.

It would seem obvious to all but the foolish that this is a great strategy. Not only do you gain access to FREE sunshine for heat and electricity but your house will be correctly oriented in terms of heat absorbtion as a means of heating in winter. With proper eaves and no windows in either western or eastern walls you also avoid excess heat absorbtion through these aspects in summer.

This is what used to be called "passive solar." Maybe it still is.

Of course this would require drastic rethinking on the part of all levels of government and town planners. More attention would need to be paid to street layouts so that the possibility for north facing roof areas exists with all houses, factories and shopping areas.

This is a difficult one as effectively streets have to face exactly north south or east west. In practical terms only half the streets can face east west, which gives the best aspect. Until people can get their heads around the front of the house not facing the street we will not see houses that lend themselves to sustainability. (The north south streets would tend to have a blank wall facing the street. Poor street appeal?

Solar powered fans could shift air around for heating and cooling at no cost other than for the initial outlay.

Resorting to strategies such as narrow distances between buildings also provides shade for walls and helps to keep buildings cool.

Building from Rammed earth is also a very effective means of cutting down on heating and cooling costs. Also a 12sqaure house can be built from the amount of soil excated from the floor area of the house to a depth of about 300mm. Added benefits of this type of dwelling are fire resistence and termite resistence.

OK more passive solar stuff. Some of the possibilties include:

Adobe (mud brick)
Pise (Rammed earth)
Straw Bale
Earth Bermed (Earth to the windowsills)
Earth Sheltered (Think cave)

Unfortunately none one of these are well received in your average sub-division with spec-built homes. I know of an instance where a timber kit home was put up in a sub division and all the other owners (brick veneer) in the street complained:((. Such was the narrowmindedness. Can you imagine if a mud brick home was errected. Apoplexy overload. The hospital would have been unable to cope :rolleyes:.

I digress, but I think it is a worthy digression.:wink:

What's that noise?

It's OK: Only sharpening his double bladed axe:D.

Regards
Paul

damian

28th July 2011, 12:00 PM

Your assuming heat absorbsion and insulation are good things.

I remember vividly when I was a kid my parents built a new house. Some years later they got insulation installed. The effect was immediate and tremendous. In winter the house would stay freezing until 11 am and in summer it'd stay unbearably hot until very late at night.

Most of those building methods create thermal lag but also signifigant heat banks. My partners place for some obscure reason heats up every night at 10pm. She has a weather station in the bedroom and we have watched time and again as the temperature drops tehn just before 10 starts climbing again.

I think what you really need to design for is heat managment. The old timber queenslanders were built as they were for very good reason. They dump heat at night really effectively. They also remain acceptably cool in daytime due to teh big verandahs, or oversized eves with floors if you like :)

We have something similar to solar extraction fans, they are called whirlybirds and provided you get your venting right they can really hammer summer heat.

Perhaps if you designed the house to stay cool, installed a plastic tube heating system and a big concrete tank under the ground and pumped the hot water around some radiators inside you'd have a very low cost heat managment system.

Of course up here it's the heat that'll kill you. You can sleep in the lawn mid winter under half a dozen kleenex and not freeze :) (caveat: I carry my own "inbuilt" insulation, you skinny folks might not do so well).

Remember a lot of how building practise has developed is (upfront) cost driven, balanced against astetics and fashion. For most people ongoing costs don't get much thought.

citybook

28th July 2011, 03:36 PM

If you are interested in the use of solar in a suburban house, have a look at this - better still, you could buy it...

Solar House 1a (http://home.iprimus.com.au/fredb19/house1a.htm)

Cheers,
Bob.

Bushmiller

28th July 2011, 08:38 PM

I think what you really need to design for is heat managment. The old timber queenslanders were built as they were for very good reason. They dump heat at night really effectively. They also remain acceptably cool in daytime due to teh big verandahs, or oversized eves with floors if you like :)

I suppose this is related to energy sources at least in so far as we are saving energy, but probably really requires as separate thread to do it justice. Just a quick comment therefore bearing in mind that Artme raised the subject with his reference to rammed earth houses and I contributed further.

Passive solar houses made from earth work best in the more arid regions. Inevitably this restricts to the inland regions. Brisbane for example will not provide a good result. Darwin would be a catastrophe.

It is essential for there to be a large range of temperature between day and night. The effect of the massive walls (commonly 300mm in mud brick) is to become a heat bank and even out the swings in temperature.

The essence of an earth sheltered house is that the ground 600mm to 900mm down remains fairly constant all through the year around 17 deg C.

You also have to differentiate between a thermal store (mudbrick, rammed earth, earth sheltered) and just insulated (strawbale).

Regards
Paul

citybook

29th July 2011, 11:06 AM

Back in post No 182 Damian said
"I think the economics of the carbon -> solar -> methane system don't stack up"

No numbers, no sources, no reasoning.

Firstly, who said that dealing with carbon emissions was economic ?

Secondly, carbon emissions are not costed into the "economics" of the so called commercial operations that make the emissions.

Thirdly, there is a lot of research going on at the moment trying to work out processes that might recover carbon. One interesting paper is
wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/pdfs/CEIC_05_05.pdf

They suggest at the moment recovery costs could be between $240 and $550/tonneC - that is around 2 to 3 times the cost of coal - so it is certainly reasonable to say this is getting close to doable.

Most importantly for me, change will only come if people think about and discuss new stuff.

It is comfortable to stay with things we have done and are familiar with - unfortunately it is things we are familiar with that have got us into a position where we may have to ditch coal and nuke.

So I would really like to know, exactly why doesn't solar -> carbon -> methane stack up ?

Cheers,
Bob

mic-d

29th July 2011, 12:25 PM

Google "DIY Solar Panels" Mic. There are a number of sites that teach you how to solder small Solar Cells into full size functioning panels. Solar panel cells are a fraction of the price of constructed panels. Broken cell pieces are even cheaper. That auction site had plenty of very cheap cells last time I looked.

I think are right in that an electrician is needed to verify the functioning of your inverter if you are going to claim a feed in tariff. Its a matter of how much time and patience you have. Currently the price of solar installations is vastly inflated due to lack of competition and a local manufacturing industry.

Haven't followed the forum much recently and haven't kept up with this thread, some late night reading ahead, no doubt:) I just wanted to pull this quote out and say that I made a start on collecting the ingredients for a small 50W trial panel. Have the cells, just have to get the casting resin, aluminum extrusion etc to build the panel. If I feel it can be scaled up to a full system and I can jig it up to make it efficient then I might give it a go. The trial panel can then go to augment the small panel at swmbo's shed. I called my sparky about the prospect of wiring system in but he's quite negative about solar - said I should have an OS holiday instead:). He reckons the payback is much longer than claimed and the only person he's seen who's on the claimed payback curve is a sparky mate who switches off the house during the day, apart from one fridge, so most of his solar electricity is exported. He is right in a way, since I work at home, I will be using most, all or even more than I generate and not selling any back so my payback would be extended. DIY seems a good option for me because it reduces payback time, I'm reducing my power bill and reducing my load on the system (environment, grid etc etc). Progress will be glacial at best as there is loads for me to learn.