Solar Power - Worth the Investment?

[Lloyd]

however the grid has been set up for the convenience of monopoly providers, not distributed small owner/providers.

Rubbish. Transmission and distribution networks have not been "set up" as monopolies. They are natural monopolies. Basic economics.

Show me a Greenie who understands this, including their current leader who some reckon is an economist. Off topic, but this is something that proponents of the NBN also fail to understand. Costing Aussies, I dunno, 50 billion? Audiophiles may know the benefits of copper wire. Anyone got ADSL2 or better with the current infrastucture? Any complaints?

Lets not also forget the desalination plant in Victoria which cost nearly 6 billion, as it was not understood that there is a natural monopoly on something called collecting rainwater in dams. But oh no, we had to double up.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Lloyd

[proftournesol]

Rubbish. Transmission and distribution networks have not been "set up" as monopolies. They are natural monopolies.

This is lost on most Greenies. Off topic, but this is something that proponents of the NBN also fail to understand. Costing Aussies, I dunno, 50 billion? Audiophiles may know the benefits of copper wire. Anyone got ADSL2 or better?

Um, I think that you just agreed with me (if you actually read what I wrote). Large utilities have been (natural) monopoly providers so of course the grid has been designed for their convenience. The monopoly has been broken and now they have competition. Individually the competition is inconsequential but together they have enough capacity and potential to have disturbed the large providers. Lloyd I thought that you were in favour of both competition, small business and individual empowerment. Home PV ticks all those boxes.

Lloyd, I'd hoped that we could exchange ideas here respectfully, you seem to be completely dismissive of anyone that has the temerity to have a different viewpoint - it's never different, it's always wrong, always rubbish, and you never offer any evidence to why. Disappointing. :mad:

[hochopeper]

Isn't the major power usage attributable industry? . . as a generality.

One would think we'd see more action on that front than seems to hit the news.

I can see it might be expensive / non-viable to run an aluminium smelter from a solar source without dimming the street lamps, but one might think we could run, say, a vehicle manufacturing plant . . . before they close down Oz operations altogether, I mean.

It'd still be tricky to run it 24/7 though, but are the economics just not there?

As a generality, yes, industry is a higher % of energy usage in Aus.

From page 3 of - http://www.ret.gov.a...tralia-2011.pdf

In 2008–09, energy consumption increased by 0.2 per cent to 5773 petajoules, which was 32 per cent of Australian energy production.

That is total of Aus and is energy, not just electricity but also petrol/gas etc.

The electricity consumed by households in urban/major cities, is understandably a much higher percentage of the electricity consumption. I believe closer to 50% of energy (kWh) in SEQ is used by residential (can't find a link to back that up right now unfortunately).

Consider that the incentives for large scale solar installations are far less than what have been seen over the last few years for residential solar installations. Still there are some businesses that can see benefits from installing solar. Schools and Universities where their contribution to network loading in their local area is a significant percentage of their local substation and daytime only. I note University of Qld (https://www.uq.edu.au/solarenergy/) and some other Brisbane schools have started installing large solar systems for this reason.

For manufacturing of cars or food products (bakeries, breweries etc) where operations are 24/7 there is less benefit to the network as the network asset required is still the same because it does not reduce the peak demand on that portion of the network and their load is a significant portion of the sub-transmission network that is required to supply them. Another consideration for a business is that if they are in an industry where their future is potentially uncertain (I am thinking of the Australian motor industry here) and the payoff period for the investment is in 10s of years then they are understandably less likely to press forward in a hurry.

In the end the answer is yes and no. The major point is that for the maximum benefit the solar installation must reduce their peak usage not just their total kWh seen on the bill.

Edited October 6, 2012 by zman

[Rob181]

Rob, I am talking about the medium future, and in the expectation that payment for PV generated power fed back to the distribution system will largely disappear for new contracts. I guess it is possible that a State or the federal government may decide to subsidize these payments for political reasons, but I am assuming not. Your situation is covered by an existing contract and not what I am discussing.

Why? Because the system can largely not use the power fed back in. An engineering issue, not an ideological one.

Mustud...I knew exactly what you were trying to say...but you have made a statement without checking the facts & it is wrong...from an engineering point. Power fed back into the grid is used and not "wasted". Also the original reason for this thread was the viability of the installation of solar for the end user or micro ROI ...not macro ROI.

That monoplies have not best utilised this power thus far should hardly surprise...by their very nature monopolies are "tunnel visioned dinosours". The continued rapid expansion of solar in SE QLD (for example) provides Energex with the opportunity to use it during peak power consumption. They know where every solar is installed & how much power can be produced on any given day. The rest...as they say...is elementry my dear Mustud...Rob

[Lloyd]

Um, I think that you just agreed with me (if you actually read what I wrote). Large utilities have been (natural) monopoly providers so of course the grid has been designed for their convenience. The monopoly has been broken and now they have competition. Individually the competition is inconsequential but together they have enough capacity and potential to have disturbed the large providers. Lloyd I thought that you were in favour of both competition, small business and individual empowerment. Home PV ticks all those boxes.

Lloyd, I'd hoped that we could exchange ideas here respectfully, you seem to be completely dismissive of anyone that has the temerity to have a different viewpoint - it's never different, it's always wrong, always rubbish, and you never offer any evidence to why. Disappointing. :mad:

Why do you keep saying my name over and over? This is rather unusual and something that I have noticed with clients of rather unusual dispositions.

"Large utilities have been (natural) monopoly providers so of course the grid has been designed for their convenience." I would agree except that it is not so much for THEIR convenience, but for most people's convenience. That anyone is wealthy enough to install largely subsidised solar panels from my pocket and then say that the economics don't matter only serves to build resentment.

[rantan]

Why do you keep saying my name over and over? This is rather unusual and something that I have noticed with clients of rather unusual dispositions.

That is what happens when your username is the same as your life name.

Would you prefer being referred to as Boofhead?

[Lloyd]

That is what happens when your username is the same as your life name.

Would you prefer being referred to as Boofhead?

My nickname at school was Sloth for obvious reasons.

[proftournesol]

Why do you keep saying my name over and over? This is rather unusual and something that I have noticed with clients of rather unusual dispositions.

"Large utilities have been (natural) monopoly providers so of course the grid has been designed for their convenience." I would agree except that it is not so much for THEIR convenience, but for most people's convenience. That anyone is wealthy enough to install largely subsidised solar panels from my pocket and then say that the economics don't matter only serves to build resentment.

Lloyd, perhaps it's for both their convenience and people's convenience. However now it isn't so convenient for an increasing percentage of the people. i thought that your libertarian streak would be supporting the individual's rights over the oppressive legislated hand of government and 'business as usual'. Surely as a society we should be nimble enough to be supporting change rather than resisting it?

[rantan]

I would be very interested in Gustav's opinion on this

[Lloyd]

I would be very interested in Gustav's opinion on this

I always defer to the wisdom of Gustav. He is not very clever, but can sniff out bullsh*t from a mile away.

[Lloyd]

Lloyd, perhaps it's for both their convenience and people's convenience. However now it isn't so convenient for an increasing percentage of the people. i thought that your libertarian streak would be supporting the individual's rights over the oppressive legislated hand of government and 'business as usual'. Surely as a society we should be nimble enough to be supporting change rather than resisting it?

Too many loaded assumptions in this for anyone to respond in a manner that would be acceptable to you.

I am glad that you are now referring to me as Shirley.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Lloyd

[hochopeper]

Surely as a society we should be nimble enough to be supporting change rather than resisting it?

That's rather optimistic given our short terms of government with relatively large union influence. Revolutionising an industry that employs as many as electricity generation and distribution (along with their respective unions) would perhaps be even less politically popular than firing 16,000 from the public service. Both may well be entirely necessary.

Given the high levels of regulation that is around these industries the generation and distribution companies often don't have as much room for taking initiative as they would like and have limited choices in their strategic directions, regardless of whether they have been privatised or remain Govt owned corporations.

This may well be another case of creative thinking not being particularly well taught in schools over decades gone past that has left minds of generations calcified with reliance on familiarity and habit rather than embracing new opportunities. These power generation and distribution companies with the structure that they have had over the last 40+ years are filled with ageing population of people who chose to take a dim view on progress and change.

Edited October 7, 2012 by zman

[proftournesol]

That's rather optimistic given our short terms of government with relatively large union influence. Revolutionising an industry that employs as many as electricity generation and distribution (along with their respective unions) would perhaps be even less politically popular than firing 16,000 from the public service. Both may well be entirely necessary.

Given the high levels of regulation that is around these industries the generation and distribution companies often don't have as much room for taking initiative as they would like and have limited choices in their strategic directions, regardless of whether they have been privatised or remain Govt owned corporations.

This may well be another case of creative thinking not being particularly well taught in schools over decades gone past that has left minds of generations calcified with reliance on familiarity and habit rather than embracing new opportunities. These power generation and distribution companies with the structure that they have had over the last 40+ years are filled with ageing population of people who chose to take a dim view on progress and change.

zman I agree, there is institutional resistance to change: corporate owners, unions, sock puppet politicians, and of course just plain old human nature. This is where we really miss visionary politicians, union leaders and community leaders.

[Rob181]

Why do you keep saying my name over and over? This is rather unusual and something that I have noticed with clients of rather unusual dispositions.

That anyone is wealthy enough to install largely subsidised solar panels from my pocket and then say that the economics don't matter only serves to build resentment.

Shorley...if you are not "wealthy enough" to instal solar panels....than the subsidy did not come from your pocket. Installing solar panels is not a matter of wealth...it is, in my case at least, a decision after a detailed analysis of my ROI and DCF spreadsheet...making a capex investment to minimise recurrent expenditure in the short & meduim term,..Rob

[Super Mustud]

Lloyd, perhaps it's for both their convenience and people's convenience. However now it isn't so convenient for an increasing percentage of the people. i thought that your libertarian streak would be supporting the individual's rights over the oppressive legislated hand of government and 'business as usual'. Surely as a society we should be nimble enough to be supporting change rather than resisting it?

Prof, what I am picking up from your description of the situation is that the system was somehow implemented to the advantage of the monoply suppliers and to the disadvantage of individual generation. I think that is misleading. At the time the system was implemented it was implemented in the only way that made sense at the time. It was also done a very long time ago. The engineering infrastructure of power stations and distribution is not like going and getting a new iPhone.

So, it makes sense to talk about how the system might evolve going forward, however to criticise the current system as a mistake of implementation is really distorting history.

[Rob181]

zman I agree, there is institutional resistance to change: corporate owners, unions, sock puppet politicians, and of course just plain old human nature. This is where we really miss visionary politicians, union leaders and community leaders.

In my suburb...a new sub station control building is currently being erected. One would sincerely hope that it is setup to receive power back from solar in a manner that minimises load during the day peak periods...but maybe that is just wishful thinking...Rob

[Super Mustud]

In my suburb...a new sub station control building is currently being erected. One would sincerely hope that it is setup to receive power back from solar in a manner that minimises load during the day peak periods...but maybe that is just wishful thinking...Rob

Indeed, however the bigger problem is the way the power stations work. They pretty much have to work at full blast all the time. If the electricity is unused then the coal being burnt just goes to waste as heat. I simplify for clarity of principle.

[proftournesol]

Prof, what I am picking up from your description of the situation is that the system was somehow implemented to the advantage of the monoply suppliers and to the disadvantage of individual generation. I think that is misleading. At the time the system was implemented it was implemented in the only way that made sense at the time. It was also done a very long time ago. The engineering infrastructure of power stations and distribution is not like going and getting a new iPhone.

So, it makes sense to talk about how the system might evolve going forward, however to criticise the current system as a mistake of implementation is really distorting history.

Mustud, I agree with you. the system was set up with the best of intentions with the best vision of the future that we had at the time. One of the difficulties for Government is that it has privatised a public asset and given the private operator a near guarantee of profitability (baring ineptitude). Unfortunately the future has served up a curve ball (one of Lloyd's black swans) and of course the corporations want to maintain business as usual despite there being a good case for a change being in the national interest. This is one of the difficulties that arises with privatisation along with the absence of the promised efficiencies leading to lower cost for the consumers. Consumers now are also competitors in some cases, of course the large operators want conditions in their interest even if it conflicts with the national interest.

[Rob181]

Indeed, however the bigger problem is the way the power stations work. They pretty much have to work at full blast all the time. If the electricity is unused then the coal being burnt just goes to waste as heat. I simplify for clarity of principle.

Hmmm...time to go searching for info...I have no idea whether generators only have two speeds...and do you need to run each & every generator all the time. I suspect not but I do not know...better ask Mrs Google...Rob

[Super Mustud]

Mustud, I agree with you. the system was set up with the best of intentions with the best vision of the future that we had at the time. One of the difficulties for Government is that it has privatised a public asset and given the private operator a near guarantee of profitability (baring ineptitude). Unfortunately the future has served up a curve ball (one of Lloyd's black swans) and of course the corporations want to maintain business as usual despite there being a good case for a change being in the national interest. This is one of the difficulties that arises with privatisation along with the absence of the promised efficiencies leading to lower cost for the consumers. Consumers now are also competitors in some cases, of course the large operators want conditions in their interest even if it conflicts with the national interest.

I'll agree with that.

As a slight aside although related, I will repeat something I have alluded to previously. Privatisation of all those utilities and services are of uncertain benefit to the wider public. The biggest benefit, apart from governments being able to pretend that things are now at arms length, come to the employees. They are no longer government employees and generally do far, far better than they ever had the chance to do before. Career prospects are also significantly better. That is my observation of all the privatisations I have either participated in or become familiar with. I had been told that prior to the first event however had been sceptical. I became converted as I saw the results.

Oh, there is some benefit to the new owners as well. But that is just business.

[Super Mustud]

Hmmm...time to go searching for info...I have no idea whether generators only have two speeds...and do you need to run each & every generator all the time. I suspect not but I do not know...better ask Mrs Google...Rob

Its more that, in simplistic terms, the power generators are designed to operate to satisfy base load and to operate efficiently have to work flat out. A thermodynamics thing.

Peak loads can then be supported with either gas generators, which are much easier to adjust although at greater cost, or with reliable supplementary supply such as hydro.

Introduction of renewables stuffs up this original design. Nothing that cannot be changed with new generation equipment, however it is not as straightforward as commonly thought.

Please accept that I am simplifying to clarify the principle.

[Super Mustud]

Hmmm...time to go searching for info...I have no idea whether generators only have two speeds...and do you need to run each & every generator all the time. I suspect not but I do not know...better ask Mrs Google...Rob

Good on you, Rob.

Suggest looking for info on base load generators and then load following generators. I don't know how much will be in Wiki, but there is bound to be stuff out there.

[proftournesol]

I'll agree with that.

As a slight aside although related, I will repeat something I have alluded to previously. Privatisation of all those utilities and services are of uncertain benefit to the wider public. The biggest benefit, apart from governments being able to pretend that things are now at arms length, come to the employees. They are no longer government employees and generally do far, far better than they ever had the chance to do before. Career prospects are also significantly better. That is my observation of all the privatisations I have either participated in or become familiar with. I had been told that prior to the first event however had been sceptical. I became converted as I saw the results.

Oh, there is some benefit to the new owners as well. But that is just business.

sure, but a part of the problem is that they stop being utilities (in the true meaning of the world). We lose something in that as a community.

[Super Mustud]

sure, but a part of the problem is that they stop being utilities (in the true meaning of the world). We lose something in that as a community.

Probably.

[davidsss]

I knew you would have to, Al, but only because you don't actually have the data to answer the question. What you have are generalities about half lives and broad statements that do not pin down the specifics. That pisses me off, as I spent some time looking for it myself some time ago and ended giving up.

I am really surprised that data on this is so hard to find. I even went through some of the nuclear producers websites without any realoy - not that I would have necessarily believed info from those sources, just as I would not accept at face value stuff from a Green website.

I agree the information is hard to find, however, I think this is a function of the nuclear industry not wanting people to know exactly how much toxic waste they produce and the military and/or potential terrorist uses to which radioactive waste can be put.

Anyway, how about this for a start:

The main isotopes of plutonium are:

• Pu-238, (half-life^a 88 years, alpha decay to U-234)
  
• Pu-239, fissile (half-life 24,000 years, alpha decay to U-235)
  
• Pu-240, fertile (half-life 6,560 years, alpha decay to U-236)
  
• Pu-241, fissile (half-life 14.4 years, beta decay to Am-241)
  
• Pu-242, (half-life 374,000 years, alpha decay to U-238)
  
• (Periodic tables show an atomic mass of 244 for plutonium, suggesting Pu-244 as the most stable isotope with the longest half-life - 82 million years. It is the only one found in trace quantities in nature, apparently cosmogenic in origin from the formation of the Earth. It is not very relevant to this paper. It alpha decays to U-240.)
  

A 1000 MWe light water reactor gives rise to about 25 tonnes of used fuel a year, containing up to 290 kilograms of plutonium.

This info is here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html This info took me about 2 minutes to find, so stop hiding behind inadequate research.

The total amount of plutonium stockpiled is hard to find but figures for 1999 are here: http://www.ccnr.org/...ventory_99.html So, stop bleating about how you can't find this information out. If I have some more time to make up for your inadequate research I might look further.

Now, back on topic. Just to give some idea about solar power for the home, our 1.88KWh system was turned on in March 2011. Since then we have used 5787.5 KWh of electricity and generated 2,410.8 KWh of electricity. at a latitude of 37.50 South we seem to be generating about two fifths of our power usage. We have not had an electricity bill since 2011, after one summer we are ahead and our bills are nil and the power company owes us money. I'm mostly interested in the clean power we generate rather than the lack of bills, but it is nice not to get electricity bills.

DS

Edited October 7, 2012 by davidsss