Solar Power - Worth the Investment?

[Super Mustud]

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 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.

DS

David, that information gives zero insight into what waste is produced by a modern nuclear power station. I might as well state that this stockpiled plutonium is produced by pv installations.

You know, what would be useful would be a listing of each of the major waste products produced, together with the the quantity p.a. and half lives for a particular size power station. In the absence of that, you have zero evidence for the dramatic statements you and several others have made about the dire long term implications of nuclear generated electricity. The obligation to produce this is not on me, as I am not the one making claims.

You have demanded evidence from those rejecting AGW, so stop faffing around. Either put up or,... er, desist.

Later Edit: You have added extra info with an edit to your post, so I shall also update.

Your source states that a 1,000MWe reactor produces up to 290kg of plutonium p.a. It is not specific as to the split up of the plutonium however states that Pu239 is the main component. So let's assume that is what it is. The source then goes on to say that this waste can be reprocessed into U235 for reuse as fuel in the reactor. It does not go on to talk about any other waste products.

So, so far I see no long term waste products being produced.

The situation is even better than I could ever have thought. Careful, Dave, you will have your Greenie epaulets ceremonially removed at the the next Chapter meeting!

Edited October 7, 2012 by Super Mustud

[Lloyd]

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 need to seek other words for "rubbish" for bland statements. Surely! Define national interest in a dispassionate, non-partisan and in an objective manner - or cease and desist from this nonsense. I am not holding my breath that it may say that you fully pay for your electricity requirements out of your own pocket.

I note with glee that some SNA members have spent the weekend enjoying the skill and engineering feats at Bathurst. There was no CO2 expended in this.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Lloyd

[Lloyd]

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:

This info is here: http://www.world-nuc...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

That is nice. Now confirm that this was done without any subsidies or tax rebates from people like myself who pay tax.

[proftournesol]

I need to seek other words for "rubbish" for bland statements. Surely! Define national interest in a dispassionate, non-partisan and in an objective manner - or cease and desist from this nonsense. I am not holding my breath that it may say that you fully pay for your electricity requirements out of your own pocket.

I note with glee that some SNA members have spent the weekend enjoying the skill and engineering feats at Bathurst. There was no CO2 expended in this.

Lloyd, national interest is a term that reflects a nation state's goals and ambitions in economic, cultural and social terms. Do you have a better definition? If one of our national goals is to be independent then surely energy independence is of primary importance. Given the increasing cost of oil, our own falling reserves, the likelihood of 'peak oil' and the international political consequences of fossil fuel dependence, might it not be in the 'national interest' to be encouraging a transition to renewable energy? Would it also then be prudent to not bet the bank on one hand and invest and encourage a diverse range of energy sources? In this country we are blessed with one of the world's most reliable wind systems, abundant solar energy, hydro and geothermal options. A mix of large and small scale would seem to be a robust option, and empower many citizens who are currently at a price disadvantage as a result of geography (distance from large scale generators).

Can you give me one example in Australia where privatisation of a 'common-wealth' asset has led to improved services and lower costs for the consumer?

[proftournesol]

That is nice. Now confirm that this was done without any subsidies or tax rebates from people like myself who pay tax.

I can confirm that the subsidy came from my tax bill not yours

[Rob181]

Can you give me one example in Australia where privatisation of a 'common-wealth' asset has led to improved services and lower costs for the consumer?

Prof...power generators are/have been state assets and their total sell off in some startes & partial sell off in others has had nothing to do with the national interest. Purely localised state interest...and the sad part is they should have been owned by the Commonwealth. I wonder just how much State Govt's have cost this country over their collective lifetimes...Rob

[Art Vandelay]

Can you give me one example in Australia where privatisation of a 'common-wealth' asset has led to improved services and lower costs for the consumer?

Telecom Australia.

[proftournesol]

Telecom Australia.

You obviously connect with another carrier and live in the city. If you live in the country and want ADSL Telstra won't offer the service unless there's a competitor who is offering you the service.

[Art Vandelay]

You obviously connect with another carrier and live in the city

Fair point, but most people do live in a city.

[proftournesol]

It's actually a great example of how national interest is implemented in a publicly owned utility compared to a private for-profit organisation. If we decide that the national interest is to empower all people no matter where they live then you could make a case for publicly owned utilities and decentralised power generation. Can you imagine how many country roads and bridges would be built if you had to make a business case for them that included a profitability requirement?

[Lloyd]

You obviously connect with another carrier and live in the city. If you live in the country and want ADSL Telstra won't offer the service unless there's a competitor who is offering you the service.

My brother lives in the country (ie - remote) and he has Telstra ADSL with a gadget and small outdoors antenna. Works as good as I get in inner city Melb, and I am tempted to look into it myself. I could call him and confirm details. Mobile Net or something like that - he tried the satellite dish thing and that was a disaster (that was an expensive govt subsidised initiative).

[Lloyd]

It's actually a great example of how national interest is implemented in a publicly owned utility compared to a private for-profit organisation. If we decide that the national interest is to empower all people no matter where they live then you could make a case for publicly owned utilities and decentralised power generation. Can you imagine how many country roads and bridges would be built if you had to make a business case for them that included a profitability requirement?

Roads and bridges, national defence, the judicial system, government, parks, beaches and so on struggle to meet any profitability requirement. Public transport is maybe another. But not electricity or natural gas industries.

I think that certain roads and bridges have been toll-ways and have been paid off, eventually. Does anyone remember having to flick coins before entering the West Gate bridge?

And, in Melb we have had the pay as you go thing on tollways with the little beeper thing on the dashboard.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Lloyd

[proftournesol]

My brother lives in the country (ie - remote) and he has Telstra ADSL with a gadget and small outdoors antenna. Works as good as I get in inner city Melb, and I am tempted to look into it myself. I could call him and confirm details. Mobile Net or something like that - he tried the satellite dish thing and that was a disaster (that was an expensive govt subsidised initiative).

There are areas of north-east Victoria Lloyd that still have no 3G, and no ADSL. All exchanges are ADSL capable but Telstra won't offer it if nobody else is. I'd be surprised if that situation was unique in Australia. That situation is not good enough in an age of 'competition'. Very few duopolies are actually competitive anyway and even though there are many telcos, there are only 2 big ones and in rural areas there may be no competition.

[proftournesol]

Roads and bridges, national defence, the judicial system, government, parks, beaches and so on struggle to meet any profitability requirement. Public transport is maybe another. But not electricity or natural gas industries.

I think that certain roads and bridges have been toll-ways and have been paid off, eventually. Does anyone remember having to flick coins before entering the West Gate bridge?

And, in Melb we have had the pay as you go thing on tollways with the little beeper thing on the dashboard.

So how are 'electronic roads and bridges' in the form of NBN any different?

When it comes to power generation, surely we need the best mix of large scale generators and small scale distributed generation? It seems to be in 'the national interest' for us to have a robust, reliable infrastructure that supports equal opportunity for all no matter where they live or their circumstances. What they make of that opportunity is then up to them.

[Lloyd]

So how are 'electronic roads and bridges' in the form of NBN any different?

When it comes to power generation, surely we need the best mix of large scale generators and small scale distributed generation? It seems to be in 'the national interest' for us to have a robust, reliable infrastructure that supports equal opportunity for all no matter where they live or their circumstances. What they make of that opportunity is then up to them.

Roads and bridges are essential. The NBN is not. If you choose to live in a remote area, there are financial and other benefits of doing so. One benefit does not include the cost of hooking up to infrastructure. Most people are aware of this fairly common sense observation.

Shirley we have a robust infrastructure for electricity already.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Lloyd

[davidsss]

David, that information gives zero insight into what waste is produced by a modern nuclear power station. I might as well state that this stockpiled plutonium is produced by pv installations.

You know, what would be useful would be a listing of each of the major waste products produced, together with the the quantity p.a. and half lives for a particular size power station. In the absence of that, you have zero evidence for the dramatic statements you and several others have made about the dire long term implications of nuclear generated electricity. The obligation to produce this is not on me, as I am not the one making claims.

You have demanded evidence from those rejecting AGW, so stop faffing around. Either put up or,... er, desist.

Later Edit: You have added extra info with an edit to your post, so I shall also update.

Your source states that a 1,000MWe reactor produces up to 290kg of plutonium p.a. It is not specific as to the split up of the plutonium however states that Pu239 is the main component. So let's assume that is what it is. The source then goes on to say that this waste can be reprocessed into U235 for reuse as fuel in the reactor. It does not go on to talk about any other waste products.

So, so far I see no long term waste products being produced.

The situation is even better than I could ever have thought. Careful, Dave, you will have your Greenie epaulets ceremonially removed at the the next Chapter meeting!

I had to edit the post as the copy and paste didn't work, that's life sometimes.

I still don't see why you want me to go and do your research for you. As I stated, this information does seem inordinantly hard to come by and I gave some possible explanations. Why not ask the nuclear industry, send them an email and see if they answer. Furthermore, I gave you the information I have on one of the waste products, plutonium. You may have noticed that the site I linked to is a pro-nuclear site. As such, it is hardly surprising that they say that Pu239 can be reprocessed, what they don't mention is that it isn't. Generally it is just disposed of but not adequaltely because there is no adequate way to dispose of radioactive toxic waste for the necessary time. You are the one defending and advocating nuclear power, show me the evidence that the waste can be disposed of for the necessary timeframes. Since you are so sure nuclear power is the answer I would have thought you would know the waste implications, but you do seem to be advocating nuclear without much knowledge.

One of the oft repeated criticisms we hear about renewable energy such as wind and solar is the need for rare elements to make wind and solar generators. What the nuclear advocates seem to constantly omit is that nuclear not only needs rare elements to construct nuclear power stations, but also the rare elements used cannot be recycled after use in a nuclear power station. Here, I'll quote the abtract from a paper in this issue:

Could nuclear power be rapidly expanded on a global scale? There are a number of practical limiting factors, including site availability and acceptability, nuclear waste disposal issues, and the risks of accidents and proliferation. But there are also a variety of resource limitations. One particular resource limitation that has not been clearly articulated in the nuclear debate thus far is the availability of the relatively scarce metals used in the construction of the reactor vessel and core. While this scarcity is not of immediate concern, it would present a hard limit to the ultimate expansion of nuclear power. This limit appears to be a harder one than the supply of uranium fuel. An increased demand for rare metals—such as hafnium, beryllium, zirconium, and niobium, for example—would also increase their price volatility and limit their rate of uptake in nuclear power stations. Metals used in the nuclear vessel eventually become radioactive and, on decommissioning, those with long half-lives cannot be recycled on timescales useful to human civilization. Thus, a large-scale expansion of nuclear power would reduce “elemental diversity†by depleting the world’s supply of some elements and making them unavailable to future generations.

Abbott D, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Sep2012, Vol. 68 Issue 5, p23-32, 10p

Lloyd, yes my solar system was subsidised. We would have gone solar anyway. In any case I support subsidising the energy of the future and in comparison to the subsidies to fossil fuels in Australia, renewable subsidies are a drop in the ocean. Compared to nuclear subsidies worldwide renewable subsidies are small. Your coal power is subsidised by my taxes, why shouldn't my solar be subsidised by yours? At least my solar doesn't emit toxins or CO2.

DS

[hochopeper]

Roads and bridges are essential. The NBN is not. If you choose to live in a remote area, there are financial and other benefits of doing so. One benefit does not include the cost of hooking up to infrastructure. Most people are aware of this fairly common sense observation.

Shirley we have a robust infrastructure for electricity already.

And here we have shirley hit the nail on the head.

Were roads always essential? Was electricity always ubiquitous?

The electricity reliability requirement of society as a whole is a moving target that depends on consumer sentiment and the amount of free cash they have. If they are not saving every last dollar then a few extra dollars a year to have electricity during the master chef finale that happens to be during a peak system load one summer (in theory, just a scenario for argument's sake). If they (as a community) are not financially constrained then Shirley use they would like to have electricity reliability through the electricity system peak. So the electricity companies and govt combined need to assess consumer sentiment and tailor the system reliability expectations to suit consumer sentiment and expectations.

You are also, for the sake of broad and sweeping generalisations (and maybe a touch of simplicity too), ignoring the decrease in reliability as infrastructure deteriorates with age. There is a an increasing amount of money that must be spent to maintain an asset base at the end of its practical life.

Edited October 8, 2012 by zman

[proftournesol]

Roads and bridges are essential. The NBN is not. If you choose to live in a remote area, there are financial and other benefits of doing so. One benefit does not include the cost of hooking up to infrastructure. Most people are aware of this fairly common sense observation.

Shirley we have a robust infrastructure for electricity already.

Lloyd the NBN will be essential in a few years, we can cobble together an ad hoc system where those who live in inner city and work in CBD get the best service and those who 'choose to live in a remote area get dial-up then leave it to the market. If you believe that 'a fair go' for all is in the national interest then provide the same infrastructure for everyone, but the market can't deliver that. We do have a robust infrastructure for electricity, or we used to before privatisation. after that the maintenance priorities changed to a replace on failure policy in Victoria. This was directly responsible for both the Marysville/Kinglake failure and the Howmans gap (Beechworth) fires on Black Saturday. The more people are self-sufficient for electricity the less government regulation is required and the more competitive the power industry will have to become.

[betty boop]

if I might dare to take this thread off topic

[quote name= al' timestamp='1348831558' post='769886]

first power bill since putting in solar. so simply energy signed me up on paying 21c and a feed in of 25c. so what do I see wiht my first bill since. yep we get 25c / kwh feed in returned as credt. but guess what the B'stards have upped my peak from 21c to 39c for jun to jul and upto 45c for jul to sep ? wtf ?

give them a call to ask whats the go. first they say oh thats what you signed up for. I let them know ofcourse that wasnt the case and was told the rates I was expecting. they go off check the recording of agreement made on the phone. coems back to say yep they had told me the rates in error. and cant do anything the rates are what they are. she first said it was because of "carbon tax" and then said it was because I had a smart meter ????

I ask for this in writing. as am going to the electricity ombudsman. what kind of craziness is this ? and what kind of nut case thinks people will sign up for solar if after paying a small fortune for solar is going to then have their peak rate more than doubled ? crazy...

by the way I checked with agl and they not only charge you only 26c/kwh but on top of the 25c feed in give you another 6c on top of that. monday its going to be Simply Energy Rippoff and hello AGL ! wont stand for this kind of rubbish !

I spoke to simply energy again last week, they tell me outright that they cant do anything with the charges as they are what they have to pay the distributor...which doesnt add up with the costs I've managed to confirm with 3 other retailers, AGL, Origin and Red energy which are all significantly cheaper. With nothing in writing and no call back from simply energy, I lodged a complaint with the energy ombudsman

http://www.ewov.com.au/

Get an answer from them saying they will have simply energy respond in 3 business days,

low and behold I get a call from simply energy saying they they will respond....and so I await what they have to say. The energy ombusman has said I can get them back involved if not happy with the outcome.

Out of interest I checked with a neighbour of mine what he is being charged and low and behold he is with AGL, getting a much electricity charge, bonuses for feed in and also availing of off cheak rates.

so lets hope this gets resolved !

[Super Mustud]

[quote name= al' timestamp='1349688919' post='775364]

if I might dare to take this thread off topic

I spoke to simply energy again last week, they tell me outright that they cant do anything with the charges as they are what they have to pay the distributor...which doesnt add up with the costs I've managed to confirm with 3 other retailers, AGL, Origin and Red energy which are all significantly cheaper. With nothing in writing and no call back from simply energy, I lodged a complaint with the energy ombudsman

http://www.ewov.com.au/

Get an answer from them saying they will have simply energy respond in 3 business days,

low and behold I get a call from simply energy saying they they will respond....and so I await what they have to say. The energy ombusman has said I can get them back involved if not happy with the outcome.

Out of interest I checked with a neighbour of mine what he is being charged and low and behold he is with AGL, getting a much electricity charge, bonuses for feed in and also availing of off cheak rates.

so lets hope this gets resolved !

Come on, Al. Can you please stick to the topic?

What the hell does that have to do with nuclear waste?

[betty boop]

Come on, Al. Can you please stick to the topic?

What the hell does that have to do with nuclear waste?

I know where I'd like to stick some nuclear waste

[davidsss]

Does sound like they are trying to shaft you Al. Hopefully getting the energy ombudsman involved will sort them out.

DS

[Super Mustud]

[quote name= al' timestamp='1349691964' post='775402]

I know where I'd like to stick some nuclear waste

Hmmmm....let me get out my manual.

The one on waste disposal.

[Rob181]

I had to edit the post as the copy and paste didn't work, that's life sometimes.

I still don't see why you want me to go and do your research for you. As I stated, this information does seem inordinantly hard to come by and I gave some possible explanations. Why not ask the nuclear industry, send them an email and see if they answer. Furthermore, I gave you the information I have on one of the waste products, plutonium. You may have noticed that the site I linked to is a pro-nuclear site. As such, it is hardly surprising that they say that Pu239 can be reprocessed, what they don't mention is that it isn't. Generally it is just disposed of but not adequaltely because there is no adequate way to dispose of radioactive toxic waste for the necessary time. You are the one defending and advocating nuclear power, show me the evidence that the waste can be disposed of for the necessary timeframes. Since you are so sure nuclear power is the answer I would have thought you would know the waste implications, but you do seem to be advocating nuclear without much knowledge.

One of the oft repeated criticisms we hear about renewable energy such as wind and solar is the need for rare elements to make wind and solar generators. What the nuclear advocates seem to constantly omit is that nuclear not only needs rare elements to construct nuclear power stations, but also the rare elements used cannot be recycled after use in a nuclear power station. Here, I'll quote the abtract from a paper in this issue:

Abbott D, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Sep2012, Vol. 68 Issue 5, p23-32, 10p

DS

Love 30 Mr Mustud...the latest serve has aced you....you have some work to do now....Rob

[proftournesol]

Speaking of going off-grid...

As Old Energy wails and thrashes against the growing numbers of Australians installing solar panels, it best be careful about how it deals with these savvy households - the buzz is building with regard to batteries for home solar installations.

The next big thing is residential solar is energy storage - and we've covered a few products to hit the market reasonably soon.

Back in June,

Hanwha SolarOne

announced a strategic partnership to develop a complete solar power and energy storage system for the residential market. Kyocera has said it will

incorporate lithium-ion batteries

into energy storage for home solar power systems.

Panasonic Corporation

has also announced its own lithium-ion battery system for residential applications. Other manufacturers are eyeing this potentially massive market too.

As with any new technology, initially these battery systems will be expensive - but as we saw with solar panels, prices can drop dramatically and quickly.

The evolution and uptake of battery technologies such as

LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate)

is picking up pace as prices drop, to the point these batteries are already being trialed by some pioneering off-gridders in Australia. LiFePO4 batteries are lighter, smaller and offer a far longer lifespan than traditional

deep cycle batteries

.

If Big Energy is worried about the impact solar is having on their bottom line now, imagine how it will be if through continued draconian policies or pitiful feed in tariffs households start dropping off the mains grid altogether in their thousands in the not-too-distant future.

But a major switch to home energy storage doesn't have to be an "us vs. them" situation either - there are opportunities for Big Energy to work with these savvy households to everyone's benefit.

According to RenewEconomy's Giles Parkinson, Tru Energy has

already hinted to this

. In the future, we could see a situation where solar households are exporting electricity to the mains grid from their battery banks during peak periods when wholesale electricity prices can cost

thousands of dollars per megawatt hour

. This is assuming households are suitably recompensed for their contribution of high value electricity of course - if not, those households will simply hold onto their energy gold for self-consumption.

The prospect of cheap battery storage systems is something else those

installing solar panels

now can look forward to in the future to help further rein in electricity bills - or perhaps even wave bye-bye to the mains grid altogether.

Expect the lobbying for a legislated savage disconnection fee.