Global Warming News

[Ken45101]

I think this argument might be a little overstated Ken. At some point the system should pay for itself. The programs will create a market that overtime will drive down equipment costs. And not having to add capacity keeps everyone's rates lower.

Sure, it's simplified, but maybe not overstated. At the end of 30 years, you still have the original money paying interest if invested. OTOH, I doubt that a physical solar energy system will live for ever and will need expensive repairs and upgrades.

You could also be wrong about it lowering people's rates. If everybody installs solar systems, electric company rates might actually INCREASE. Why? Because they still have to have the power plants built and sitting there idle, but capable of cranking out full power on a ten below zero night when no one's solar units are putting out a single watt. Amortizing a power plant that only gets used occasionally will increase the rates, not lower them.

Of course it depends on the location. Some places have their peaks on summer afternoons when solar will help. Other locations have their peak needs on cold winter nights.

Ken

 

[20 20]

If I remember correctly, Rob said that his solar system was in the $100,000 range. He's totally off the grid and has two massive solar panels that follow the sun, plus a generator and a room full of batteries. Once a month, they check the batteries and make sure everything is working properly. I forget how long the batteries last, but a big drawback to solar for just one house is that those batteries only last so long and then you have to replace them. Not figuring the damage that they do to a landfill, they are a big expense that has to be figured into the break even formula of going solar.

Agreed, the batteries were a huge draw back for us.

If you think that you'll break even in ten years, but then have to buy new batteries every ten years, when do you break even?

later then sooner, but still not soon enough IMO.

If you can get a small home solar system that generates a small amount of electricty, but you still have power coming in and you are not dependent on it, there might be some savings in not buying as much power because the solar is supplying part of your demand. That would be really tough to figure out, but possible with the right monitoring equipment. I just wonder how much you'll actually be saving, the cost of that electricty, and if there really is a payback for the life of the solar equipment that you paid for. I highly doubt it. When you factor in your time, it gets even harder to see where it's worthwhile.

With us up here it is not so much the price per electricity as it is all the surcharges. We may use $50 of electricity per month but the surcharges bring the bill to around the $200 per month

The obvious solution is nuclear. Natural gas makes allot of sense too with the announcements of how much there is available. Eddie

I have to disagree with the obvious answer here{sorry } The obvious answer has not been found IMO, and as long as there is greed and politcal red tape nothing will change.

I also don't care for nuclear as an answer, I don't believe we know enough about it. Or at the very least prepare enough for it????

 

[eepete]

In broad terms, there are two kinds of solar installations. One, like mine, is called "grid tie". It has no batteries and puts it's power back out to the grid. You have one meter for what you use (your normal house meter) and one on the grid tie system for what you make/put into the grid. The numbers are posted earlier in this thread. Different viewpoints see the numbers in different ways, in this case depending on your views about tax subsidies. Those different views on this small area exemplify the problems in discussing all these matters.

The other PV solar system is "off grid". These systems have batteries to store the energy and provide power when it's dark out. They are much more expensive and have a lot more maintenance. They only make economic sense when there is no grid power available (or it's wickedly expensive to have it put in).

Eddie, one project I'm working on is Home Automation. One of the task of that project is to monitor and smartly manage energy use. It's been hard to get accurate data about the cost and effectiveness of solar PV grid tie systems. Lots of studies, but most of them in academic or research/grant environments. It's a small part of the puzzle where I can take what few skills I have and figure something out. I also fully agree with your views on nuclear. I also view wind power as a supplement that works in some locations.

The "Game Changing" events in solar are:
1) increasing the efficiency of collection
2) Storage
3) Storage back to energy
Note also that (2) & (3) could also apply to wind power. Progress on these game changers is probably a generation off as far as any widespread implementation.

So for now it's a small part of the solution, and we can see if any game changers come down the road. Just wanted to clarify the two flavors of photo voltaic (PV) solar systems that are out there.

Pete

 

[EddieWalker]

Pete,

I really like your posts. You make allot of sense, and explain what you are doing, or thinking of, very clearly.

Eddie

 

[charlz]

When I lived in Las Vegas I looked hard at putting up a grid-tie system. I forget the details but the way it worked out was something like a 20 year payback. No state solar incentives at the time, just Federal. It was exactly the warranty/life expectancy of panels. In the summer months, on paper, it would provide about 10% of my power usage. In the winter I might have been net metering power back, depending on how well it worked in the winter.

One of the key downsides, and why I say 'on paper' is during my research I found that solar panel efficiency goes _down_ when temperature goes _up_. It gets dang hot in Vegas, especially on a tile roof. So during my peak demand, sunny summer day, the system may have actually been producing the lowest amount of electricity.

 

[Loren49]

In projections on payback of any system, the future costs of pollution (environmental damage, health problems, etc.) are certainly debatable but are seldom considered.
It is likely that nuclear electricity production will continue to be needed in the future but I feel our heads are in the sand concerning the future cost of cleanup and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes.

My first response to people who ask about being off the grid is that it requires using much less electricity. (unless money is no object) I didn't say having a lower standard of living - it just requires doing things different than most.

Profile of my system - We chose to go off-grid when the local utility wanted $5000 dollar (1982 dollars, about $11000 dollars in 2008)to run lines to my house site so that I would have the privilege of buying their power at their price. We had a wind system installed in 1983 (1kw generator, 80 ft tower, 6 - 220amp/hr batteries and wiring from tower to house). I paid (overpaid) $11000 and received a federal tax credit of $4000 and a state credit of $2600. Since that time my system has changed considerably. The main components have been a couple small wind generators, ten 80 - 90 watt solar panels, various charge controllers and inverters (to change from 12VDC to 120VDC) I use both 12 volt and 120 volt in the house. Every cent after the initial purchase has come out of my pocket. I do take exception to some for claiming that I am a fool for not having their wisdom. By the way I paid cash for every purchase and have lived on a modest income - I didn't inherit it - I worked. Concerning batteries - battery banks have lasted from 8 to 10 years - I have used deep cycle lead acid batteries (how about attacking golf cart users?) Currently I use Sam's Club 6 volt golf cart batteries. My actual use would be about 1.5 6volt batteries per year. (to the vocal critics - how does that compare to even a gram of nuclear waste?) To be fair - I have a high output alternator run buy a 8hp Honda motor as a backup - its needed at times in the winter - it charges at max of 120 amps)

I don't regret the choices I've made. We saved a portion of a mile of the electric grid and at home we don't stress the grid. (does tax money go into the grid?) I believe it has helped us to be debt free for 25 years) The costs of solar compared to wind have changed considerably since 1982. If I was starting over now it would be solar - I love the upkeep and the silence. The real advantage of going solar if you are on the grid is that I believe many people would find ways to live so that you would sell to the power company more of the time. You would save money and live just as well or better.

There is a lot of grey out there - black and white on issues scares me.

Loren

 

[Knotbored]

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

 

[charlz]

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

The technology is still out there. From what I know they still have 'materials' problems. Being able to spin something at 50,000 rpm for extended periods of time without it coming apart.

 

[charlz]

Currently I use Sam's Club 6 volt golf cart batteries. My actual use would be about 1.5 6volt batteries per year. (to the vocal critics - how does that compare to even a gram of nuclear waste?)

Aren't lead acid batteries fully recyclable?

 

[dmccarty]

Pillar: here's the #s:

Cost of panels, inverter, rails: $34,100
Cost of stainless steel threaded rod and hardware: $753
Cost of lumber for inverter shed: $1,000
Cost of concrete: $250
Cost of 100A drop from power company: $300

Total cost of system: $36,403

33% from feds, $10K from NC, after tax credit cost: $14,390

I get 20 cents per kilowatt hour. 15 from NC Greenshares (cap and trade deal) and 5 from the power company (burden cost). Power company also has net metering, cost of electricity here is 10 cents per KWH. That's my worst case rate if NC Greenshares can't sell enough carbon credits.

On-lin calculator for my area (Raleigh, NC) shows $2000 per year at that payback rate. Also I'm assuming that investing the money elsewhere (i.e. cost of lost opportunity) would be around 2% annually, since interest rates are bad.

Pete

Pete,

How many KW's are being produced in this system?

You said, "I get 20 cents per kilowatt hour. 15 from NC Greenshares (cap and trade deal) and 5 from the power company (burden cost). " Does this mean YOU get paid 20 cents per KWH or that is what the system costs to produce the KWH? Is NC Greenshares paying the home owner for producing power as well? I am trying to understand if there are payments made to the home owner that I do not know about.

My understanding about NC net metering is that the power company pays the wholesale rate of the power while I still pay retail. In other words if the wholesale rate is 5 cents per KWH that is the credit I would get for the power I put back in the grid. Yet I would still pay full costs for the power I used which is 10 cents per KWH. I would being saving money but not as much as one would believe. I don't know if the wholesale cost is 5 cents I just pulled that out of the hat as an example.

Below is not addressed to Pete just a statement of my understanding of how the credits work in NC and likely other states.

For years the NC tax credit has been capped in several ways. Solar power generation is capped at $10,500. But a home owner can only claim 35% of the cost of the system up too the $10,500 limit. Which means a homeowner would have to spend $30,000 on the system to get the full credit. Your numbers reflect this but I am trying to make a point for others so bear with me.

The OTHER cap is that a homeowner can only get back a maximum of 50% of their NC tax. If the homeowner spent 30K on the system, NC will give them back 10.5K but for them to get the full amount back they would have to pay in NC taxes 21K. Maybe John Edwards has a tax bill like that but I sure don't. I hear he has more dependent deductions all of the sudden so maybe his tax bill has gone down.

The way I read the law, the homeowner can take six years to get the tax credit. If they are paying $5,000 a year in NC taxes then they could get back a max of $2,500 per year for six years. After 5 years they would would have the full 10.5K credit. If the homeowner was ONLY paying $3,000 a year in NC taxes they could only get $1,500 back per year on the credit and after six years they could only get back $9,000 out of the $10,500. Not bad but it is still $1,500 short of the max and takes six years to recoup.

Two points from all of the numbers. First, the tax credits are not as great as they seem. One reads I can get 35% pack up to $10.5K! Woo Hoo. The problem is two fold. First one has to be able to pay 30K up front to install the system in the first place. THEN wait years to get the tax credit back. And it might take six years to finally get all of the money back. One can't put the system in service in 2010 and then in 2011 get $10.5K back on their NC taxes. Unless one has lots of taxes to pay. I have lots of taxes to pay but NOT that much!

The other "trick" in this is that it behooves the home owner to get the system in service in December so that in January they can start their tax returns to get the tax credit back ASAP.

DSIRE: DSIRE Home is a great source of information on renewable energy tax issues.

Later,
Dan

 

[Ken45101]

It is likely that nuclear electricity production will continue to be needed in the future but I feel our heads are in the sand concerning the future cost of cleanup and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes.

I certainly agree that clean up and waste disposal are major issues that need to be solved. However, it's my understanding that Fast Breeder Reactors produce little or no nuclear waste. The French have been using that technology successfully for decades. However, the U.S. government refuses to even allow the technology to be considered.

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

I recently saw a review of some of Pop Science's past hysterical claims for future technologies. It might appear that there is little reality in their "POP" science. I would not trust their ideas as connected to practical reality.

Ken

 

[eepete]

@Dan: All good points. My income varies from zero to lots depending on what work shows up. A hidden win because I do cash only and early on learned to get rid of all debt, but that's another story. Started the solar project in October for end of year win. Had a big job this year, so tax credits work out pretty good, not perfect. My numbers show this in general, as with all these discussions it's hard to know what level of detail is relevant to the point being discussed. Someday when things slow down I'll send you a PM and if you want to can come out and see it all- tractors and solar, what a great day! Have 7.7KW DC, which peaks at about 6-ishKW AC. Inverter and site are sized for up to 10KW DC in case all this works really well. Hope to get check for 15 cents per KWH from Greenshares, credit from power company for burden cost of 5 cents per KWH, I pay 10 cents per KHW for the house meter for what I use. Paperwork still going through on all that. There is risk, slop, and uncertainty in all the numbers, just like when you buy a tractor and don't really know if it and the implements are sized for what you want to do.

@Loren: It's all gray. You found a great solution for your problem, and have kept adapting and tweaking it as needed. It doesn't get better than that.

@charlz: Part of the monitoring of all this is to figure out impact of reduced power at higher temperatures, aging, etc. I currently can monitor outside temp, humidity, light levels, and power usage. When all this get gets going I'm sure there will be more to post (maybe not here in tractor land, but I'll put it out there and let people know where it is- gotta be mindful of the purpose of this forum).

@20_20: On nuclear, we can learn a lot from France. I'd love to see a single national design to reduce cost and let all sites learn from any site that had a problem and solved it. Need national processing and disposal. The inherently safe designs look interesting. I don't know enough about it to intelligently discuss it here, but what little I know says it can be done right but as always the devil is in the details. The scariest part is trusting big business and big government to get it right.

@Eddy: Thanks. I always think my posts are too long, it's nice to know that sometimes that's working OK for people.

Ok, time for me to get back out there and work on my tractor garage I'm building (with help from Morton). I'm going to insulate it so that whichever way the climate goes I win!

Pete

 

[Ken45101]

On nuclear, we can learn a lot from France. I'd love to see a single national design to reduce cost and let all sites learn from any site that had a problem and solved it.

Oh yes! The local utility (Cincinnati Gas & Electric) decided to do their own nuclear design work (Kind of like self taught bomb disposal) After years and years of delays and mistakes, they finally threw in the towel except that they "converted" the partially built plant to coal so that they saddle the customers for their stupidity! The conversion alone cost more than a new coal plant

Yes, there ought to be a standard, modular design.

Ken

 

[turbo36]

Keegs, For goodness sake, seal up that attic door!

Tax incentives and markets are incredibly complex entities that are woven throughout our economy.

Take roads and highways for example. Roads are paid for and maintained with fuel taxes, some pay annual auto excise taxes, city/township/county, state and federal funds, tolls, etc.

I like a California or Florida orange in winter here in Maine as well as the next person, but strictly speaking, the road and highway network we have isn't a necessity. We collectively decided we would rather have our roads and grudgingly pay for them.

The existance of roadways distorts markets. Certainly their existance distorts rail travel and shipping markets. Same for barges and cargo ships. Housing and commercial real estate markets. How much is a gas station worth without roads to drive on? What is an orange grove worth, or how much would a fresh orange in Maine cost without publically funded roadways?

Many of the same types of distinctions can be made for the air travel/cargo industry.

I think it is an oversimplification to say tax incentives and the corresponding manipulation of markets should be done away with. If you start looking at the less obvious cases there would be a growing list of exceptions people would be/are willing to make.

When looking at energy subsidies, the debate is really about how much the public values the results of manipulating the market. It's also about being forced by circumstances to adopt new paradigms. Whole books can and have been written just to address 'circumstances'. Good points have been made here for and against subsidies.

My personal opinion is we are making a slow but certain exit from the age of fossil fuel energy. The debate is going to continue for some years. Fossil fuels will continue to be used, but will become a specialty fuel. Disclaimer: It's possible my crystal ball is smudged, your mileage may vary.

Here is a factoid from blurtit.com :
In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year.

I believe I have heard it stated also as: the sun provides enough energy on the surface of the earth each hour to power all human needs for one week.

The solar energy is there if we are smart enough to utilize it.
Dave.

Dang man, we have to get together over a bottle of wine sometime. Very few people understand the complexity of the interest driven subsidization system that we and all countries have. Your post does a great job "scratching the surface" in a way most people can understand. Thanks.

 

[dave1949]

It's not just a question of "smarts". We are no where near the technology to utilize solar energy at anywhere near 25%, much less 100%. Besides, do you realize that if you utilized all the sun energy that shines on Lake Erie, it would freeze!

Yes, hopefully some day we will have high efficiency solar energy. But today the efficiency is quite low and it is not a widespread solution. I'm not saying that we shouldn't work on improving it, but it just isn't a broad solution. Besides, the manufacturing process is environmentally unfriendly if it were currently implemented in massive fashion.

Ken

I meant 'smart' in the sense of 'able' to develop the technology, not just to be aware that the resource is there. Your point is well taken, I should have phrased it differently. The current level of technology for converting sunlight into electricity is 'early days' in the larger scheme of things.

Since the energy is there to capture, if we are able, I put it in the same category as fusion reactors; I hope someday the technology will exist to use it.

Regarding the cost of powering an off-grid home from photovoltaic panels and batteries, I did some calculations a couple years back when we were planning our house. I came to the conclusion that break even would be tough to achieve. This was pre-tax incentives. It looked like as a break even point was approached, it would be time for a new set of batteries, as Eddie said. That would be a best-case scenario without the need to replace many failed parts prematurely. We have high (0.16/KWH) electric rates here, so that factor will skew results compared to other areas. I also assumed we would cut our KWH use to a bare minimum and have a backup generator. I added in the extra costs of purchasing extremely efficient appliances.

It is economically sound for situations where the cost of getting grid power to your homesite is expensive. I know of several homes in my area that function quite well off-grid eventhough we are far from the sunshine belt. It isn't correct to categorically say solar electric is not workable unless you are in the desert or similar sunshine locations.

One example is a guy who found himself on the wrong side of a railroad right of way. He found out too late they wanted a high monthly payment for him to have a power line easement over the right of way. In his case, off-grid power made it possible to use his land. Hopefully, that was reflected in the price of the land, normally that would be the case. That reduction in land price can be applied to the cost of the solar power, all things being equal. The point being, off-grid can make a cheap but decent piece of property more useable. Not to say that is extremely useful - except to a lot of the people on this forum

eepete is not the only guy I know who just wanted to say goodbye to the power company. I respect that choice.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Dang man, we have to get together over a bottle of wine sometime. Very few people understand the complexity of the interest driven subsidization system that we and all countries have. Your post does a great job "scratching the surface" in a way most people can understand. Thanks.

Thanks turbo36.

Ethanol from corn: An obvious subsidy and resulting market manipulation that the public did not value after paying more for everything related to corn and ground that could grow corn Besides being junk science - the truth will out.

There are some easy ones like that, but we forget about or don't think of most of them because they are deeply imbedded in the economy by custom and choice.
Dave.

 

[Pilot]

Back to global warming:

You have heard the word "unprecedented" used in regard to our current apparent warming event. Looks like the medieval warming period was a bit warmer than now, doesn't it? This is data from NOAA, not some crackpot. And that pesky medieval warming period was left out of the 2001 IPCC report. Must have missed that, somehow, but they did have it in an earlier report. Including it in 2001 was just inconvenient, I guess.

 

[IH3444]

OMG, how did we survive that and the black plague? Hotter than now, do tell! Sounds like a skeptic story to me. Are the dinosaurs OK?

 

[dave1949]

Back to global warming:

You have heard the word "unprecedented" used in regard to our current apparent warming event. Looks like the medieval warming period was a bit warmer than now, doesn't it? This is data from NOAA, not some crackpot. And that pesky medieval warming period was left out of the 2007 IPCC report. Must have missed that, somehow, but they did have it in an earlier report. Including it in 2007 was just inconvenient, I guess.

What the graph shows is ice cores taken from Greenland indicate it had a significant warming period. Other collected data shows that approximate level of warming extended into parts of Europe also.

What the graph doesn't show is that the entire globe had a similar and uniform warming spell. From what I have read, when evidence that this was a global condition is looked for, they don't find it.

If you think they didn't find it on purpose, or whatever the case may be, the best way to prove that is to collect and analyze data yourself. Maybe you could start a foundation that collects donations to fund climate research. It is possible you will have many contributors.

In the reading I've done, and it's good this thread encourages that, I have never seen any reference to a researcher denying there was a Medieval warming period in Greenland and adjacent areas.

Dave.

 

[Pilot]

Well, Michael Mann, of the famous and discredited "hockey stick" of the climategate email scandal fame says it was only a northern hemisphere phenomena.

But then, we have this:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg