iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Future of Solar Power

Started by Gary_C, April 19, 2016, 01:23:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brucer

Quote from: Larry on May 21, 2016, 04:52:15 PM
I have heard rumor of a new idea.  Invest in the utility company to install solar panels than get a break on your bill.  This would be in lieu of the homeowner buying and installing there own solar panels.  The idea is to eliminate net metering.

Not a rumour. It's being done in Nelson, BC (an hour's drive from me). The city owns the utility and the dam. I was asked to bid on the wood for the frames that will support the panels.

The project was proposed but did not go beyond the planning stage until all the panels were fully subscribed (which didn't take all that long).
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Gary_C

Quote from: SLawyer Dave on May 22, 2016, 11:33:53 AM

Hydrogen fuel cells show a lot of promise.  Imagine using excess solar power generated during the day, to disassociate sea water into oxygen and hydrogen.  The hydrogen will then be stored in fuel cells, and used to produce electricity during non-day light hours.  Or, using a direct conversion, store both the disassociated oxygen and hydrogen, and then recombine in a controlled and continuous burn to replace natural gas in a conventional gas fired turbine.  This reaction will also produce clean potable water, something that is itself very valuable in many places.  Yes, there will be loss of efficiency with both methods, but again, make solar energy cheap and efficient enough, and the conversion loss becomes affordable.

Here is what Ianab said about that plan at reply 7 here: https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,77356.msg1173944.html#msg1173944

Main reason is that it doesn't work.... It's not that you can't make hydrogen with electrolysis, that's easy enough. You can run an engine on hydrogen (like pretty much any flammable gas).

The problem is that it takes more energy to split the water into hydrogen (and oxygen) than you can get back by combining them again. With the efficiency of the average internal combustion engine you might hope to get ~25% of the power back? It pops up again every few years, usually someone looking for investors or selling plans.  ::)

Same issue faces commercial hydrogen powered vehicles. It sounds great on paper because the exhaust gas is water vapour, so much less pollution from the car exhaust. But where you you get the hydrogen from? Make it from Natural gas, or build a new coal fired power station or a Nuke plant? Just creates more pollution (because of efficiency losses in the processes), in some other area.

There is no free lunch...


And then pineywoods said this at reply 26:

NASA spent a ton of money trying to find a way to store hydrogen. I had a neighbor who was on the research team. The thing that ultimately killed the idea was a process called hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen atoms are so small, they will seep through solid metal. In doing so, they make the metal extremely brittle. One experiment filled a cylinder with 2 inch thick aluminum walls with hydrogen under a few thousand psi. Came back later and most of the hydrogen was gone. Someone smacked the cylinder with a hammer and it shattered like glass.

Then I said this at reply 24:

And then there is the "Ka Boom" problem.

Fuel cell technology has been around for a long time and yet it has not been well adopted. There's three reasons why.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Gary_C

Quote from: SLawyer Dave on May 22, 2016, 11:09:41 AM

As to the "hot water" vs. electricity that Gary referenced, there are a number of low grade, (low temperature), geothermal projects around the world where people are piping geothermally heated water into buildings and projects as a heating source.  Due to their lower temperature, they are not considered a viable resource for electrical production, but can be economically viable over a small geographical area for heating purposes.


I was actually referring to the large number of technical issues that exist in converting BOTH hot water and steam into electrical energy. For one, turbine engine blades do not like any free water in the steam they are fed so an uncontrolled steam supply is dangerous territory. Then you have to stop extracting energy from the steam before it starts condensing water, and then what do you do with the hot water or condensate. In order to get your efficiency up you need to deal with the leftover energy containing waste. Making electricity out of steam is not as easy as it sounds. 
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

SLawyer Dave

Quote from: Gary_C on May 23, 2016, 02:46:04 AM

The problem is that it takes more energy to split the water into hydrogen (and oxygen) than you can get back by combining them again. With the efficiency of the average internal combustion engine you might hope to get ~25% of the power back? It pops up again every few years, usually someone looking for investors or selling plans.  ::)



Very true, which is why I specifically referenced that in my post, (generally called conversion loss).  The solar only is so efficient, the disassociation of the H2O loses more energy, and the conversion back to H2O, again loses more energy.  However, while all of this is true, the fact remains that we are only talking about when the value of the electrical energy produced, equals or exceeds the carrying costs of the investment and operation. 

As we obtain higher efficiency, and lowering of costs through scaling, AND the cost of electrical energy continues to climb, such a system will become both economically feasible and reliable.  Again, it comes down to what is the final cost of the kwh produced.  Even if it is only 8 to 12% efficient, (as measured against 100% potential conversion to actual), if the final cost of a kwh is economically competitive, then the system will benefit us economically.  This also ignores the potential production value of both the salt and potable water that can be produced from such a process. 

SLawyer Dave

Quote from: Gary_C on May 23, 2016, 03:25:14 AM


I was actually referring to the large number of technical issues that exist in converting BOTH hot water and steam into electrical energy. For one, turbine engine blades do not like any free water in the steam they are fed so an uncontrolled steam supply is dangerous territory. Then you have to stop extracting energy from the steam before it starts condensing water, and then what do you do with the hot water or condensate. In order to get your efficiency up you need to deal with the leftover energy containing waste. Making electricity out of steam is not as easy as it sounds.

While I agree there are always technical issues that can be improved, I disagree with your overall premise.  Commercial wet geothermal energy has been being produced continually since 1911 when the first plant became operational in Italy.  Overall, direct "wet" steam energy has been used to produce electricity for over 150 years.  The first such generators used the principles of a steam locomotive to use steam pressure to drive pistons, which created angular momentum, driving a shaft which rotated the generator.  Modern stainless steel turbines are much more efficient and do not have the maintenance, corrosion, and short life spans that the first generations suffered from.  Further, there are a number of binary systems in place currently, where that same "heat source", (whether steam or super-heated water still under high pressure so that it will not flash to steam),  are used with a heat exchanger to heat a secondary isolated fluid, that then will actually be used to turn the turbine.  Not only is this process used in some geothermal applications, but such binary processes are at the heart of almost every nuclear power plant in the world.

Scientifically and technically, we know more about using steam efficiently to make electricity, then almost any other form of electrical generation.  Primarily because we have been doing that for so long, and have had a chance to make it ever more efficient.

Ianab

NZ now produces about 15% of if it's electrical power generation from geothermal heat now, via 8 power stations. So the technical issues are solvable, although how practical the generation is depends on the local geology. Having volcanoes nearby makes it more likely to work.  :D
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

Gary_C

Quote from: SLawyer Dave on May 23, 2016, 08:41:33 AM

While I agree there are always technical issues that can be improved, I disagree with your overall premise. 

I'm not really sure what "premise" you are disagreeing with but I think the confusion is about your term "wet steam." You are using the term to describe the label of the source of the steam being generated and mixing that with the quality of the steam from your source.

Steam turbines come in many sizes and designs depending on the application. Without getting into all the variations like condensing, non-condensing, etc. the enemy of all types of steam turbines is water in the steam because it will erode the blades and destroy the turbine in a short time. There is a secondary issue on a molecular level of what is called creep where the molecules of the material in the blades does not stay in place at the high temperatures found in steam turbines. To make a long story short, any water molecules in a liquid form that come from wet steam from a quality standpoint will cause serious problems.

That's not to say a turbine cannot be designed to match the source and quality of the steam, but the efficiency will depend on all the factors and situation available. As I said, It's not as easy as saying use a steam turbine. That's my "premise."
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Brucer

Here's an interesting story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/vince-sharpe-inuvik-nwt-solar-power-bill-1.3599408

Keep in mind that electricity (and everything else) is very expensive where this guy lives.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

florida

This is exactly what irritates me about solar, they have to lie to make it seem viable.  I agree that electricity is probably expensive  where Mr Sharpe lives but I also know that he lives in a very dark climate at 66 degrees north where solar is not ever going to produce any meaningful amounts of electricity.   We have no idea what size his system is nor what the total cost was. I looked and Canadians get a 30% tax credit for solar plus rebates from the power company and other incentives.  (This is all money that other people pay.)  I would imagine the real cost of his system would be more in the $50K plus range.  Add 4% interest to that and the 25 year cost will be more like $135,000.00 or $450.00 a month for 25 years.  Even if we use his figure of $33,000.00  the 25 year cost will be  $90,000.00 at only 4 percent.  That gives him a real energy cost of $300.00 a month for 25 years, double what  he's paying now.

I looked at one of the commercial solar arrays near him  in Colville, BC to see what kind of power they actually produce.  It's a 132 kw array that up until a week or so ago had  basically produced nothing this year. Yesterday they produced 293 kwh of power, worth $29.00 at their net metering rate of $.099 a kwh.   I checked random days all the way back to May of 2015 and about 350 kwh a day seems  to be the most they've ever produced  with production down to 0 from late August through early May.  Based on last years production they are on target to produce right around $3,000.00 of power this year.  They'll have it paid off in 2,599 years!

https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/xrDs481206/overview


General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

Brucer

Out of curiosity, who is the "they" that is supposed to be lying in this case?

Some numbers for you ...

Inuvik's power used to come entirely from diesel generators. Two years ago they began operating an LNG powered plant, which cuts the need for diesel-generated electricity in half. The LNG is trucked from southern BC.

The electrical rate in Inuvik is  28.31 cents / KWh. Any amount in excess of 1000 kWh per month costs 60.83 cents / kWh. It actually costs the utility 60.83 cents / kWh to generate the electricity, so homeowner are subsidized for up to $325 per month before they actually start paying the true cost of power.

In winter, the sun does not rise for 30 days. However, in summer the sun does not set for 55 days (on average). During the summer period the sun will be roughly 45 degrees above the horizon.

In the NorthWest Territories, renewable energy receives a 33% subsidy, up to a maximum of $5000 per year. An earlier report put the actual installed cost at $50,000, which is consistent with a subsidized cost of $33,000 spread over three years.

Scaling off the photo, the panels appear to be either 3' square or 1 meter square. That puts the array at between 380 ft2 and 450 ft2.

The utility credits the net power at full retail amount, not at their actual cost. Any rebates are set to zero on March 31 so there is no carry-over of credits.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Gary_C

Bruce, a couple of questions.

First what is the difference between LNG power and diesel power? Is it simply engines converted to burn LNG?

Second, suppose all the residents of Inuvik followed Vince Sharpe's idea and installed solar panels. Who then would be paying for the power during the night and when the sun doesn't shine?
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Ianab

QuoteFirst what is the difference between LNG power and diesel power? Is it simply engines converted to burn LNG?

Basically yes, but in bulk Natural Gas is cheaper than diesel.

At night they still have to fire up the generators, but if you can cut the generation back significantly during the day (when power use is usually higher) then you reduce the overall cost. Main cost of generation like that is the fuel, use only 2/3 of the fuel, and your overall cost is much less.

If you have cheap mains power, the current solar doesn't really stack up. When you start paying 60 cents a unit, things start looking different.

Now solar power is not popular where I live, because it's not subsidised, we have relatively cheap mains power, and it's usually cloudy. So all the nay sayers arguments are valid.
Weekend warrior, Peterson JP test pilot, Dolmar 7900 and Stihl MS310 saws and  the usual collection of power tools :)

florida

The "they" I refer to is the entire solar industry and the government  that supports solar for political reasons.  All the large solar PV companies pulled out of Nevada last month because they cut net metering  rates to  back to wholesale. The president of Solar City, the largest PV company in American testified and said that without retail net metering solar made no sense. Of course retail net metering forces the power suppliers to buy PV electricity at the same price they sell it which passes on all the other costs to those who don't have solar.
You're correct about the net metering plan in Inuvik. The $.099 rate I used came from the power company website but must be for locations where power is not subsidized like it is in Inuvik.   I don't understand why power is so heavily subsidized there  but I suppose  that's down to politicians as well.
But let's look at Mr Sharpe's situation.  His system cost $50,000.00, he paid $33,000.00. According to him he used 8,000 KW last year and expects to generate 13,000 Kw this year.  He'll sell  the excess 5,000  Kw back to the power company at $.68 a KW or a total of $3400.00.  His base 8,000 Kw will be free to him at a value of $2,240.00 so he's $5640.00 to the good.  But the payment  on the $33,000.00 he paid is at least $300.00 a month for a total of $3600.00 a year and the other $17,000 the system cost will have to be paid by someone else at another  $1,800.00  annually for a total of $5400.00 out.  System maintenance and the cost of running a generator to back up his solar on cloudy days will certainly cost more than the $240.00 annual difference.  Of course Mr Sharpe isn't going to pay  that additional $1,800.00  annual interest so rather than reducing his electric bill he's just having someone else pay it.   I am casting no aspersions on Mr Sharpe, I'm sure he hasn't done the math, he just believed the salesman and the politicians who told him it was a good deal.
General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

Brucer

Quote from: Gary_C on May 27, 2016, 03:36:00 AM
...  suppose all the residents of Inuvik followed Vince Sharpe's idea and installed solar panels. Who then would be paying for the power during the night and when the sun doesn't shine?

They would, (unless they could wheel the excess power down to California in the summer :D).

That's the limitation on net metering with solar PV. It works great as long as only some of the population does it. If everyone starts to get on the bandwagon, then the utility will be forced to put a limit on how many households they will allow to do net metering.

Quote from: Ianab on May 27, 2016, 04:06:14 AM
... Main cost of generation like that is the fuel, use only 2/3 of the fuel, and your overall cost is much less. ...

And transportation is a major expense in getting the fuel to Inuvik.

Quote from: florida on May 27, 2016, 09:40:16 PM
...  He'll sell  the excess 5,000  Kw back to the power company at $.68 a KW or a total of $3400.00. ...

At the moment, he won't. Firstly, the utility resets the credits back to zero on March 31 each year. He'll effectively get enough credits to cover his costs but no more. Second, the utility only pays the retails rate for the power they buy from him.

He's not happy about the March 31 reset and is lobbying to get that rule changed.

Quote
... Of course Mr Sharpe isn't going to pay  that additional $1,800.00  annual interest so rather than reducing his electric bill he's just having someone else pay it. ...

But hang on a minute. He's "selling" the power company 13000 kWh per year but they are only paying him $0.283 for the amount he uses -- 8000 kWh. The power company would have paid $0.608 to generate the total amount he's providing. That means the power company is ahead $5640 per year (if my math is correct). That means he is effectively subsidizing his neighbours rather than the other way around.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

Ljohnsaw

Quote from: Brucer on May 28, 2016, 02:41:05 AM

He's not happy about the March 31 reset and is lobbying to get that rule changed.

Quote
... Of course Mr Sharpe isn't going to pay  that additional $1,800.00  annual interest so rather than reducing his electric bill he's just having someone else pay it. ...

My "Reset" date is my "true-up" month, April.  It is the anniversary of my install/startup - April 14.  I don't annually, over generate so I never have any "excess" anyhow.  I knew how much (little) the power company would pay and how "low" my baseline rates are so it did not make sense to zero out my bill.  Some of my neighbors just wanted the satisfaction of having a net zero payment for the year and "overbuilt" without considering the economics.  If your system is right on the edge of supplying your yearly usage, a "reset" would be a problem at times, it would be nice to bank for a "bad" sun year.  If you have way more than you need, it doesn't matter one bit.

Quote from: Brucer on May 28, 2016, 02:41:05 AM
But hang on a minute. He's "selling" the power company 13000 kWh per year but they are only paying him $0.283 for the amount he uses -- 8000 kWh. The power company would have paid $0.608 to generate the total amount he's providing. That means the power company is ahead $5640 per year (if my math is correct). That means he is effectively subsidizing his neighbours rather than the other way around.

I don't think so - with his excess generation and getting paid the wholesale energy rate, he is subsidizing the power company, not his neighbors.  The neighbors are NOT benefiting from his excess generation, the power company is not having to generate (saving the $.608 less what they paid him) and can charge his neighbors the full rate!  The power company makes money for doing nothing.

With my tiered rate structure, it gets a little complicated but if I were to receive the true cost of power for my excess, then I would have overbuilt so I could "make" money.  Someday that might work out but the poor saps that don't have solar power would be stuck paying exorbitant energy rates.  Something WILL change in the future.  The current model is not sustainable.
John Sawicky

Just North-East of Sacramento...

SkyTrak 9038, Ford 545D FEL, Davis Little Monster backhoe, Case 16+4 Trencher, Home Built 42" capacity/36" cut Bandmill up to 54' long - using it all to build a timber frame cabin.

Gary_C

While looking for some costs of generating electricity I came across the EIA data and there are two tables that I found that tell an important story. First table is Power Plant Operating Costs and the second table is Costs and Avoided Costs of New Generation Resources.

In looking at this data it is apparent the government has little interest in promoting the most economical energy source. Their sole mission is about a de facto carbon tax or carbon credit and the subsidies and net metering schemes are a means to reduce our carbon footprint, nothing more. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

That being said, the economics right now are favoring (forcing may be a better word) a switch from coal to natural gas. The investment dollars thus are going into conversions to clean burning natural gas, not solar PV.

Geothermal is good on costs but not getting much attention probably because of the technology being a bit of a question along with questions about scale of production from any one location.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

florida

brucer

Good point about him subsidizing the power company. The math to figure out the real cost is incredible.

But wait! How could Mr Sharpe have an electric bill at all?  He claims to have used 8,000 Kw last year and to have had a $149.00 a month bill.  8,000 Kw keeps him well under the 1000 KW a month rate increase and he's subsidized $285.00 a month which makes the first 1000 Kw free.   Why would he have a bill at all?
General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

florida

Gary C

----------------------------------
"Their sole mission is about a de facto carbon tax or carbon credit and the subsidies and net metering schemes are a means to reduce our carbon footprint, nothing more.'

Not that I disagree at all but solar doesn't have a smaller carbon footprint.  The footprint of diesel is easy, you just measure it at the point of use. Since solar has no point of use footprint you have to go back to the manufacturing process to measure the footprint. In that case price is a good proxy  for the footprint since everything that goes into a solar panel has to be made which creates its own footprint.  Since the power density of solar is so low more land, steel and other raw materials go into manufacturing an equivalent amount of power.   


General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

Brucer

Quote from: florida on May 29, 2016, 04:10:28 PM
... But wait! How could Mr Sharpe have an electric bill at all?  He claims to have used 8,000 Kw last year and to have had a $149.00 a month bill.  8,000 Kw keeps him well under the 1000 KW a month rate increase and he's subsidized $285.00 a month which makes the first 1000 Kw free.   Why would he have a bill at all?

Remember, his credit gets reset to zero on March 31.

The temperature in Inuvik is described as "frigid" (which means below -9°C or 16°F) for 90% of the time between early November and late March. For a month during that time the sun will never rise over the horizon. It's quite likely that he will be into the higher rate zone for at least part of the time.

I expect his bill was for April, when the temperatures began to rise. I gather his system wasn't fully online until this spring.

If I did my math correctly, you were using an annual interest rate of around 10% to figure the true cost of his system. That seems a tad high (but I haven't borrowed money for a while). In any case, there is another way to look at this.

The guy is a contractor and probably did the installation himself. He paid about the same as some people do for a good quality hydraulic sawmill ;D. So what kind of return on his investment could he have reasonably made if he had invested the money? These days I'm seeing about 1/2% at the bank. With the money he is actually able to collect from the utility, I doubt that his payback period would ever drop to 7 years. But over a 15-20 year period, he'll probably make more than he would have by putting his money in the bank.

As for the cost of fuel, Inuvik is accessible by a "highway" that is only paved for part of it's length. The road is only usable in the summer and the winter. In spring and fall, the highway shuts down while the ice bridges crossing numerous rivers either freeze over, or thaw out. That means they can only truck in supplies (like fuel) for about half the year. The alternative is to fly it in.

There won't be too many days when it's too hot to saw. The record low was -56.7°C, or -70.1°F  :o)


Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

florida

brucer
I'm still confused. If I'm reading correctly all the residents of Inuvik are subsidized  for the first $325.00 of power they use every month. At the lower rate of $.285 per Kw that would be for the first 1148 Kw they use every month. So if he only used 8,000 total Kw for the year, even if he went  over 1,000 Kw some months his total power bill for the year couldn't have amounted to much could it?
I used 4% interest in my calculations which I expect is probably low.
As to the cost of fuel, no doubt is  high but I can't see why it would be $.608 a kilowatt. Diesel fuel is trucked everywhere. Until about 10 years ago our power was produced at a plant on the river 4 or 5 miles from my house. It ran on fuel oil which was brought  in on 2, 400,000 gallon barges every day from Gasparilla Island. At that time our electric rate was about $.09 a Kw. 
I had to make some assumptions  but I can't see any way it could be costing $.608 a Kw to produce power there. A 1500 MW diesel generator  which should satisfy Inuviks  needs will produce 1,080,000 Kw a month for about $.14 a Kw. Not arguing that it's not, I just don't see why.
General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

Brucer

Wait, hold it, too many numbers! I'm getting confused ??? :D.

The subsidy is the difference between the cost ($.608) and the price ($.285), or 1000 kWh each month. Looking at the annual temperature profile for Inuvik I estimate that his surplus power demand is between 1000 and 2000 kWh per year. That puts his annual bill in the $2500 to $3000 range.

Here's a little road trip you could take. Drive from Fort Myers to Washington, DC. Then drive to Nashville. Then go back home. That's the distance from Vancouver BC to Inuvik. Only you don't get to drive on good roads. Here's a quote from someone who drove the route: "... Just a few kilometres shy of the [Dawson City, Yukon] is the start of the infamous Dempster Highway, a 750-km tire-eating, vehicle destroying gravel and slate road ...". There's also no backhaul to earn some income on the return trip.

It's not just fuel that has to go there. Spare parts, lubricants, tools all have to get there. And with the highway closed for up to 3 months at a time, spares for everything have to be on hand. If you overlooked something, the only alternative is to fly it in -- if the weather lets you.
Bruce    LT40HDG28 bandsaw
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers."

tmarch

All I know is that my 6000 watt system is saving me over $1800.00 a year.  That should simplify some of the math.
Retired to the ranch, saw, and sell solar pumps.

florida

brucer,

Should have spent more time on Google Earth! You're right, he's way, way up there! I thought he was n BC which would have been bad enough weather wise but he's in a different world. I can see where trucking costs would be high.
General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

florida

tmarch

How about some more information? Where are you? How much did your system cost and how much of that did you pay?  How many Kwhs did you use before your system was installed? What's your net metering return?
General contractor and carpenter for 50 years.
Retired now!

enigmaT120

Quote from: florida on May 29, 2016, 08:32:43 PM
Gary C
Not that I disagree at all but solar doesn't have a smaller carbon footprint.  The footprint of diesel is easy, you just measure it at the point of use. Since solar has no point of use footprint you have to go back to the manufacturing process to measure the footprint. In that case price is a good proxy  for the footprint since everything that goes into a solar panel has to be made which creates its own footprint.  Since the power density of solar is so low more land, steel and other raw materials go into manufacturing an equivalent amount of power.

Diesel's footprint certainly doesn't begin at the point of use, any more than a solar panel's.  That fuel doesn't come out of the ground, get transported, refined, and transported again for free.
Ed Miller
Falls City, Or

Thank You Sponsors!