Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[SaintsSeptember]

Cost of wind power = cost of gas power + cost of wind power. Cost of solar = cost of solar +cost of gas.
Now work out the financial viability.
Wind power without appropriate backup is useless, unless we have an industry prepared to take brownouts.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Once we find a cheap alternative fuel, they'll find a cheaper way to extract coal from Antarctica, and amend the treaty.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Once we find a cheap alternative fuel, they'll find a cheaper way to extract coal from Antarctica, and amend the treaty.

Forget about treaties, the Chinese already have their eye on it , and will have the Airforce to back themselves. Maybe we can move there and farm the place.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Say an area needed 1000Mw.
Someone built a gas station that produces 1000Mw, they price the power to give themselves a 10 year payback.
Then someone built a subsidised wind farm. that produces 500Mw when the wind blows.
The people with the gas station do the math and put up their prices, when the wind isn't blowing they really jack up their prices.
When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining you still need that 1000Mw and you still pay for the entire 1000Mw.

This is the exact problem that generators have right now. They assumed that they could just jack up electricity prices and not have any impact on demand. Instead people got smarter and looked to energy efficiency. Rooftop solar also became viable because of these increased prices. Now demand has dropped so generators either have to jack up prices further which is likely to speed up the drop in demand or they make a loss on their investment. Neither is a good result.

The fact is people can now generate their own electricity significantly cheaper than they can buy it from the grid. The more the cost of grid electricity goes up the more people will look at ways to do reduce their reliance on the grid. The more people that are trying to do that the more businesses will come up offering such services. Overall it's a vicious cycle and the likely end point is storage being cheaper than relying on the grid which would be catastrophic for traditional utilities.

 

[Footy Smarts]

"Eventually we'll hit a point where solar and storage is preferable to relying on grid electricity and that spells doom for fossil fuels. With storage those people with small solar modules can now upgrade to much bigger ones and rely on the grid even less. It also means that wind, which is cheaper than fossil fuels already, and large-scale solar, which is predicted to be the cheapest of the lot, doesn't have to worry about intermittency since people can store their own electricity and just power up from the grid when it's available."

I'm laughing my arse off!

Go forth smart man and use solar power and wind power to keep Perth running 24/7. TODAY! with current power usage Detail your plan. No country in the world has solved this problem.


LMAO ... solar and wind!

Ok. First of all nobody is saying it can be done today. It can't. However in 30 years I highly doubt the situation will be the same.

The first point which surely you agree on is that solar definitely can provide the AMOUNT of energy Australia requires. Australia consumes about 180 TWh per year. At a capacity factor of 20% that would require a bit over 100GW of solar to give the same amount of electricity we use per year. Let's be conservative and say 140GW would be required. 200W solar panels are ~1m x 1.5m in size. So 120GW would cover an area of approximately 1,050 square kilometers. That sounds huge but that equates to 0.06% of our land area and the vast majority of that would be roof space. It's really not that much to provide the amount of electricity Australia uses.

The question is how to store that for when it's required. Again storing 20GW of power for say 15 hours sounds a crazy amount. But that amounts to less than 15kWh of storage per person which is less than the storage in a standard electric vehicle. When technology does something cheaper and better it becomes widespread very quickly. Solar PV is currently going through that hence its explosion in Australia in recent years. With battery prices plummeting, electric vehicles are likely to do almost everything as well and cheaper than petrol vehicles in the not too distant future. When that happens you'll see a massive switch over and you've immediately got immense storage capabilities from that.

It's not going to happen overnight but in 30-40 years? It's certainly not out of the question.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This is the exact problem that generators have right now. They assumed that they could just jack up electricity prices and not have any impact on demand. Instead people got smarter and looked to energy efficiency. Rooftop solar also became viable because of these increased prices. Now demand has dropped so generators either have to jack up prices further which is likely to speed up the drop in demand or they make a loss on their investment. Neither is a good result.

The fact is people can now generate their own electricity significantly cheaper than they can buy it from the grid. The more the cost of grid electricity goes up the more people will look at ways to do reduce their reliance on the grid. The more people that are trying to do that the more businesses will come up offering such services. Overall it's a vicious cycle and the likely end point is storage being cheaper than relying on the grid which would be catastrophic for traditional utilities.

Really? Find me a system that will give me a 5 year return of capital + interest.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Really? Find me a system that will give me a 5 year return of capital + interest.

Are you talking just solar or solar and storage?

In terms of solar the current 5kW price in Melbourne is $8,389. That includes a contribution due to the RET of ~$0.70 per Watt so the real price would be $11,889. That will produce about 18kWh of electricity each day so in 5 years that's 32,850 kWh. Current electricity prices vary from about 20-25c/kWh in Victoria so that's between $6570 and $8,212. So you're close to paying off the system in 5 years with the RET and without it'll be more like 8 years. Of course this doesn't take into account opportunity cost of the investment or the possibility that you've made a poor decision to put too big a system on your roof so you have to export electricity to the grid at only 8c/kWh. But it also doesn't take into account the fact that electricity prices are rising much faster than inflation so you're likely to be offsetting significantly more than 20-25c/kWh in later years. It's also a system that lasts for ~25 years (with some other costs like replacing the inverter of course) so you've got a long time after payback to make money. So we're borderline on the 5 years call now but chances are the payback time is only going to decrease over the next few years.

In terms of solar and storage? That's not there yet. I'm not claiming it is. But then solar 5 years ago was miles away. Now it's seriously denting generators' revenue. Even with most of the subsidies removed people are still going solar. With the explosion in electric vehicle sales we're seeing in Europe and the US the price of batteries is only going to get less and less. When the long-term outlook for the cost of rooftop solar production is 10c/kWh or lower and electricity prices are already 20c/kWh or higher, and rising, that's a big gap in which to fit storage. It would be very silly of retailers to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Are you talking just solar or solar and storage?

In terms of solar the current 5kW price in Melbourne is $8,389. That includes a contribution due to the RET of ~$0.70 per Watt so the real price would be $11,889. That will produce about 18kWh of electricity each day so in 5 years that's 32,850 kWh. Current electricity prices vary from about 20-25c/kWh in Victoria so that's between $6570 and $8,212. So you're close to paying off the system in 5 years with the RET and without it'll be more like 8 years. Of course this doesn't take into account opportunity cost of the investment or the possibility that you've made a poor decision to put too big a system on your roof so you have to export electricity to the grid at only 8c/kWh. But it also doesn't take into account the fact that electricity prices are rising much faster than inflation so you're likely to be offsetting significantly more than 20-25c/kWh in later years. It's also a system that lasts for ~25 years (with some other costs like replacing the inverter of course) so you've got a long time after payback to make money. So we're borderline on the 5 years call now but chances are the payback time is only going to decrease over the next few years.

In terms of solar and storage? That's not there yet. I'm not claiming it is. But then solar 5 years ago was miles away. Now it's seriously denting generators' revenue. Even with most of the subsidies removed people are still going solar. With the explosion in electric vehicle sales we're seeing in Europe and the US the price of batteries is only going to get less and less. When the long-term outlook for the cost of rooftop solar production is 10c/kWh or lower and electricity prices are already 20c/kWh or higher, and rising, that's a big gap in which to fit storage. It would be very silly of retailers to dismiss it out of hand.

I've got the little 3Kw system but it has subsidised feed in tariffs. I'm still not confident that its paying for itself.

Ironically I suspect that if you bought a small economical diesel like a ford 1.0 litre 74kw ecoboost, and used it to generate your own in cahoots with a reasonable size solar system, you'd do better than paying the generator, + infrastructure+ provider their cut each. I should try to find the figures and work it out.
If you wanted to be enviro friendly you could run it on canola oil or something I guess.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I've got the little 3Kw system but it has subsidised feed in tariffs. I'm still not confident that its paying for itself.

Well that depends on a few things. What's your FiT?

If you got it late on while the FiT was still large then you should be raking it in since you wouldn't have paid that much more for your system but would be getting paid more for your electricity than in my example. If you were one of the early movers then it's likely you paid a lot more for your system than current prices so it may not be economic (but of course that no longer applies). Have you thought of monitoring the PV production so you can actually work out whether it's economic?

Ironically I suspect that if you bought a small economical diesel like a ford 1.0 litre 74kw ecoboost, and used it to generate your own in cahoots with a reasonable size solar system, you'd do better than paying the generator, + infrastructure+ provider their cut each. I should try to find the figures and work it out.
If you wanted to be enviro friendly you could run it on canola oil or something I guess.

Do you mean going off-grid with that?

Maybe but I doubt it. If the energy consumption was concentrated during the day then probably since cheap solar PV can cover most of your generation. But diesel is generally a pretty expensive way of generating electricity so you're getting some cheap solar but also relying on a lot of expensive diesel. But that's just a gut feel and could be completely wrong.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Well that depends on a few things. What's your FiT?

If you got it late on while the FiT was still large then you should be raking it in since you wouldn't have paid that much more for your system but would be getting paid more for your electricity than in my example. If you were one of the early movers then it's likely you paid a lot more for your system than current prices so it may not be economic (but of course that no longer applies). Have you thought of monitoring the PV production so you can actually work out whether it's economic?



Do you mean going off-grid with that?

Maybe but I doubt it. If the energy consumption was concentrated during the day then probably since cheap solar PV can cover most of your generation. But diesel is generally a pretty expensive way of generating electricity so you're getting some cheap solar but also relying on a lot of expensive diesel. But that's just a gut feel and could be completely wrong.

Yeah I had a look its probably about 40c/kwh . Typical residential rates are probably 20something cents/kwh while medium sized businesses are less than half of that.

Maybe a gas powered Stirling engine Someone was telling me you can now get very small hydro generators suitable for water tanks, for anyone with a hill. ( Pump it up when its sunny ).

 

[medusala]

Epic lulz.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/...ming-green-is-the-color-of-money/#comment-883

In 1997, then Enron CEO, Ken Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide. On August 4th, 1997, Ken Lay met with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others at the White House to discuss

 

[fishardansin]

Anyone suggesting solar panels on roof tops or concentrated solar thermal plants built in the outback, along with wind turbine power, is a "future" potential for human beings, as a replacement energy source, compared to fossil or nuclear power, needed for the future of mankind is a dopey bastard. Full stop.

Ignorance, incompetence, stupidity... coupled with moronic imbeciles, seems to sum up the current 21st century Malthusian Eco Fascists we all now see today defending this garbage "power source" called modern day renewable energy.

Apart from Hydro electricity, renewable is sh*T!


A nation still drawing 18,000MW in it’s sleep can’t go solar…
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/a-nation-still-drawing-18000mw-in-its-sleep-cant-go-solar/

There is no silver bullet. Renewable energy from wind, solar, tidal and many others can provide plenty. There is also developments in the harnessing of longwave radiation, which means energy can be generated overnight too as the earth radiates back what the sun has given it. However, if you add nuclear power to the mix we have plenty of power. This isn't including us changing behaviour with cycling and public transport, for example.

 

[medusala]

Renewables are a dead duck. The economic argument is over regardless of your view on AGW.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ange-the-debate-is-about-to-change-radically/

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP

So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

 

[fishardansin]

Yet the science is showing that we've consistently underestimated the physical impacts to the biosphere in general and more specifically our ability to farm at the industrial level required to feed 9,000,000,000 people. We need to reduce carbon emmissions by 60% by 2030

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/global-carbon-budget

 

[Footy Smarts]

Renewables are a dead duck. The economic argument is over regardless of your view on AGW.

You know stating something doesn't make it true. You do know that every energy agency around the world recognises that new built wind is cheaper than almost any other option right? You also realise that all predictions have solar PV being the cheapest form of energy even in relatively non-sunny areas of the earth in coming decades. Right?

Also what do you think is financially preferable? Paying for rooftop solar panels where the energy costs you overall ~13c/kWh or spending ~25c/kWh for electricity from the grid?

 

[fishardansin]

You know stating something doesn't make it true. You do know that every energy agency around the world recognises that new built wind is cheaper than almost any other option right? You also realise that all predictions have solar PV being the cheapest form of energy even in relatively non-sunny areas of the earth in coming decades. Right?

Also what do you think is financially preferable? Paying for rooftop solar panels where the energy costs you overall ~13c/kWh or spending ~25c/kWh for electricity from the grid?

Clearly it's better to pay 25c to industries that are heavily subsidised to appease and unholy alliance between anti environmental industrialists and unions.

 

[Partridge]

Clearly it's better to pay 25c to industries that are heavily subsidised to appease and unholy alliance between anti environmental industrialists and unions.

Don't forget the other part - listen to absolutely every single fringe group on this matter, except for the EXPERTS.

 

[fishardansin]

Don't forget the other part - listen to absolutely every single fringe group on this matter, except for the EXPERTS.

"Experts" what does that even mean? I mean this is a democracy and my ignorant baseless opinion is just as worthwhile as an eminent professor who has led his field for decades. I mean they're only considered and expert because his peers are all in on the fraud/delusion with them.

I mean people have no idea how much energy will increase in our biosphere from the release of Co2, even though there is a simple equation more than 100 years old!

 

[Partridge]

"Experts" what does that even mean? I mean this is a democracy and my ignorant baseless opinion is just as worthwhile as an eminent professor who has led his field for decades. I mean they're only considered and expert because his peers are all in on the fraud/delusion with them.

I mean people have no idea how much energy will increase in our biosphere from the release of Co2, even though there is a simple equation more than 100 years old!

There's the problem right there. No it isn't.

Ignorant people not only think they're entitled to an opinion (that's fine), but for some perverse reason think it has to be taken seriously. It doesn't. You sit at the kids' table, not with the adults.

 

[medusala]

You do know that every energy agency around the world recognises that new built wind is cheaper than almost any other option right?

No. Clearly incorrect.

I mean this is a democracy and my ignorant baseless opinion is just as worthwhile as an eminent professor who has led his field for decades.

Appeal to authority fallacy. I don't give a stuff if Michael Mann has a phd. It doesn't take a genius to work out his work is badly flawed (or worse) and that the Stern Report was a farce.

You may as well say that we should take Krugman seriously because he won a nobel prize.

 

[Dan26]

How about this from the ABC.

It's almost comedic the lengths to which they will go to spread the alarmist religion. If it wasn't alarmist enough to crap on about huge sea level rises, and food shortages and drowning polar bears, they have come up with the single greatest, most extreme sentence in climate history.

It's utterly brilliant, in it's simplicity and it's catastrophism. You ready for it? I nearly fell of my chair laughing:

"Climate change will impact everything everywhere"

http://thenews-uk.com/news/climate-change-will-impact-everything-everywhere-abc-online

 

[evo]

There's the problem right there. No it isn't.

Ignorant people not only think they're entitled to an opinion (that's fine), but for some perverse reason think it has to be taken seriously. It doesn't. You sit at the kids' table, not with the adults.

thats kinda how i feel about people who share their opinions on economics ( which is way more prevelent than pontifications on AGW)

 

[SaintsSeptember]

thats kinda how i feel about people who share their opinions on economics ( which is way more prevelent than pontifications on AGW)

To me all of the subjects are related.
Economics rely on growth, which to an extent relies on market growth or population growth, which then causes issues with the environment and sustainability.

 

[Todman]

EUROPE is unhappy with Australia’s decision to drop climate change from the G20 agenda and is lobbying the Abbott government to reconsider.
European Union officials say Australia has become completely “disengaged” on climate change since Tony Abbott was elected in September last year.
They are disappointed with the Prime Minister’s approach, saying Australia was considered an important climate change player under Labor.
One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally”.
The EU has a long-running emissions trading scheme which was going to be linked to Australia’s market. But Mr Abbott has pledged to scrap the carbon price in favour of his direct action policy.

 

[Windhover]

Renewables are a dead duck. The economic argument is over regardless of your view on AGW.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...ange-the-debate-is-about-to-change-radically/

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP

So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

I want to congratulate you medusala. For the first time (certainly that I am aware of) you have actually taken the IPCC seriously (or at least an allegedly leaked draft report of the IPCC, but who is quibbling). Now what is the betting that if the actual report is different to the alleged leaked draft report you will return to your denialist opinion? I am happy to put serious dosh on the line on this one, so high is my respect for your intellectual integrity.