Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Just out of curiosity...because this is a really epically long thread...
Did anyone mention lead-acid carbon supercells?
Took me a bit of looking, but I found specs:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/axion_picks_up_.html
Did anyone mention lead-acid carbon supercells?
Took me a bit of looking, but I found specs:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/axion_picks_up_.html
You do if you think solar PV can ever economically replace even 1/3 of the grid's power.
At least you are aware that grid PV is competitive for a few users because of the 30% subsidy, but seem unaware of the greater "hidden subsidy" these few grid connected PV users enjoy from their non-PV neighbors who are paying for the capital cost of the grid PV's virtual battery, which is so large it can fill in for a week of cloud cover days. See post 1440 for more details.
No. Perhaps because your link says the hope to be manufacturing in 2006. If not that, perhaps because the final table does compare them to Li-ion. They are half the cost, or so they project back in 2006, but only have 25% of the volumetric Watt hour storage and only 20% of the WH / Kg as the Li-ion battery does.
My last house had a fairly flat roof facing southeast. Still got about 95% of what I would have gotten with an ideal (latitude) angled mount angled south-southwest, which is the ideal angle for coastal Socal.
Heck, some people have roofs that face east and west. They put panels on both sides and get 85% of what they would have otherwise.
True. Nowadays, though, you can use Enphase inverters (one per panel) to get around that problem. If you shade one of 20 panels you still get 95% output.
We'd just hose them off once a month. Seemed to work.
That's about right, actually. As a long term goal we should be aiming for a peak-power mix of something like:
Natural gas/biogas 20% (primarily as peakers)
Wind 20% (opportunity)
Solar 20% (opportunity)
Hydro 15% (peaker)
Nuclear 25% (primarily as baseline)
. . . and the non-solar neighbors are enjoying the benefits of having their neighbor provide them power on the hot, sunny days when load is highest. Seems like a win-win.
It does seem it took them a while to work the kinks out...
But coincidentally, this press release came out today-they are manufacturing these batteries out of New Castle, Pennsylvania, and will be shipping them in quantity:
http://www.axionpower.com/profiles/...sp?BzID=1933&ResLibraryID=43961&Category=1562
The whole point of using the lead-acid was to bring down the cost...which is projected to rise for NiCD and Li-ion batteries, because they're made out of rather unusual and pricey materials.
Lead-acid batts are less efficient, but they are cheap. Meaning you can bring down the cost of a hybrid or electric car.
Cost is a big issue with the hybrid and electric cars' popularity.
But coincidentally, this press release came out today-they are manufacturing these batteries out of New Castle, Pennsylvania, and will be shipping them in quantity:
http://www.axionpower.com/profiles/...sp?BzID=1933&ResLibraryID=43961&Category=1562
The whole point of using the lead-acid was to bring down the cost...which is projected to rise for NiCD and Li-ion batteries, because they're made out of rather unusual and pricey materials.
Lead-acid batts are less efficient, but they are cheap. Meaning you can bring down the cost of a hybrid or electric car.
Cost is a big issue with the hybrid and electric cars' popularity.
That is assuming that panels cost $8000/kW. They are now around $2000/kW. The last issue of Home Power had Chinese panels for under $1000/kW. Assuming $2000/kW brings you cost down to $6666 lifecycle cost, or 14.5 cents/kwhr. (Local power here costs about 13 cents/kwhr.) Of course, after the amortization period, the cost become just battery replacement costs, so it drops to a few cents per kwhr.
If the peak load were always on sunny days it would be, but some utilities have their peak loads at night with lights and TVs etc. Even one peak during the year when it is night or the sky is cloudy shoots this win-win down. The capital is invested for the max load expected until more generation is planned to come on line.
The grid connected PV can reduce the FUEL use on hot sunny days, but not the ~80+ % of the cost of you bill. Grid PV can only add to that cost as the grid PV people use utility power so little they pay little for the capital invested or even collect from the power company and pay less than zero towards the capital, but those four cloudy days (or nights) that happen when the non-PV users have the system at peak demand make the power company buy more natural gas generators that may only be used one time every two years just to give the PV gird customers power.
Remember, at least 80% of your bill is the capital cost, not the fuel, so fact the PV can save a little fuel on sunny days does not compensate for the capital cost they add.
Grid PV users are "free loading" on the regular users and that "virtual battery" subsidy will end when they add significantly to the non-PV customers bill.
Last edited by a moderator:
So is range on full charge. Using a battery that is five times heavier for the same KWHs stored plays hell with the range.
Also if price is the main consideration, there is a very rugged iron battery that is cheap and almost impossible the damage. (50+ year life, unlimited cycles, etc.) Some studies show it should be in the basement of homes that have time-of-day price for their power. - Run home on battery, which charges only at lowest power rate. this BTW, unlike grid PV customer, makes the demand curve more nearly flat and save greatly on the capital cost - the power company could probably make them more cheaply than the new plant needed without them "peak shaving."
Last edited by a moderator:
Had never heard of iron-based batteries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_iron_battery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_iron_battery
Well did you ever bother to look at my calculations??????
That link is using OLD data and it is referring to an OFF GRID system
First major problem is the cost of the panels, they are roughly four times as high as panels cost today.
Not anymore
Closest I could find to the current market prices for a 75 watt panel (which hardly anyone uses such small panels anymore, by the way) is $157 for an 85 watt panel, or $1.68 per watt. The system I configured used 210 watt panels, also priced at $1.68 per watt.
http://www.sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1495
Secondly, that system only provided a peak load of 1,000 watts and that is useless, the system I configured provided up to 6000 watts from the system and power for loads over that came from the grid.
Third, instead of the cost of batteries $1,000 up front, $4,000 life cycle which in your example is nearly half the price of the system, the Grid Tie system I configured uses a low cost disconnect (~$200) to allow tying into the grid. Thus when you have more power than you need you spin your meter backwards and the grid effectively is your battery. This avoidance of the use of lead acid batteries in the system drastically lowers your cost per kWh.
The system I configured, if installed in Southern California would (with the Fed tax credit) pay for itself from day 1. Other locations in the SW, where electricity is still cheaper than Californin, would take longer to break even but would still save you many thousands of dollars over the life of the system.
Arthur
Last edited:
I'd be very surprised if loads at 2am are higher than at 5pm in the summer. That's why utilities do time-of-use pricing, and why it's cheaper at night - less demand.
It makes it a win-breakeven. If your two options are a win-win or a win-breakeven you're in pretty good shape overall methinks.
>Remember, at least 80% of your bill is the capital cost, not the fuel, so fact
>the PV can save a little fuel on sunny days does not compensate for the
>capital cost they add.
They also save on distribution costs. An SDG+E RE inspector was here a while back, and while looking at our system made the comment "I wish more people would put in systems like these - we wouldn't have to be putting in things like the Sunrise Powerlink" (a much-protested transmission line going in through the desert here.)
So lower fuel costs, lower infrastructure costs - sounds again like a win-win (unless you're in the business of installing transmission lines I suppose.)
>Grid PV users are "free loading" on the regular users . . .
And regular users are "free loading" on PV users when they get the energy the PV producer generated - and is giving away for free. I called that a win-win, but I guess if you're less optimistic you could call it a win (me) win (neighbor) lose (transmission line construction companies.)
Which I never said, so why are you?
PV only produces power when the sun shines so it has its limits. It will be many many years before PV produces even a few percent of our power.
No, as I pointed out, it is competitive today even without the Subsidy, the difference is how long it takes to put you in the black, but over the lifetime of the system, even without the Fed Tax Credit, a PV system today, given electrical rates of .12 cent or greater, and sun hours like our sunny SouthWest will pay for itself. Other places with higher electrical costs, like the Northeast, can get by with fewer sun hours though.
Why would you conclude that Billy?
I'm totally aware of that and I mentioned using the grid as a virtual battery a number of times. And since we are nowhere near the problems you mention in your normally pessimistic way, there is plenty of time for PV users to install systems and reap the benefits.
By the time the volume of PV gets to the levels that it is even a concern to the grid, the costs of the systems will likely have completely changed so projections about what will happen in the distant future are pointless.
Besides, even now a great deal of the cost of an electrical system is paying off the huge up front capital costs of new baseload plants, and what PV users do is to delay the need for that and thus lower the costs to the power companies. As far as peak loads go, no they are not that big of an issue either, not with modern interconnects between systems and the fact that power companies use relatively low cost NG systems for these peaks (higher fuel costs but much lower capital costs)
Arthur
There are some seriously over-optimistic people talking about solar cells. I have been trying to find independent data on the net to support claims of $ 1-00 per watt. Without success.
Figures I have come up with are way larger. $ 3-70 per watt in this 2009 article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152130.htm
Enthusiasts getting carried away.
Figures I have come up with are way larger. $ 3-70 per watt in this 2009 article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152130.htm
Enthusiasts getting carried away.
But I didn't quote an installed figure of $1 per watt. The panels were $1.68 per watt, and the installed price (before 30% tax credit) was $2.91 and you saved money as soon as you turned it on.
Your report is on the AVERAGE costs and for several years ago and the prices of panels have come down, and since small systems which cost more per watt to install are much more common then large systems that makes the cost per Watt go up.
Which is why I configured a LARGE system, one that took advantage of buying a complete pallet of panels and configuring the system to use 90% of the wattage the inverter could handle and used fixed aluminum mounting rails which are easy to install on any flat surface.
I also did not include a large installation charge, I allowed $1,609 (10%) for required permits and hook up by an electrician of the key components that connect you to the grid and your house, but assumed that you would do the physical installation of the panels yourself. If not, you need to probably add several thousand more to the cost, but you are still going to be saving money.
Indeed, here is a complete system, very similar in capacity to the one I configured and for essentially the same price.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/system/24-panel-solar-sky-grid-tie-solar-power-system.html
So no, we are NOT talking enthusiest prices.
Arthur
Yes it will pay off eventually by your analysis which includes only the 30% Fed Tax Credit, but that is true ONLY because you are ignoring the "hidden subsidy" of having non-PV customers of the electric company pay for the "virtual battery" that supplies the grid-PV user energy when the sun is not shinning. That is a very large and expensive virtual battery as it may need to supply all his demand for a week!
If ALL the subsidies were removed, then PV can rarely compete with grid power. That is the point I was making. It is not "pessimistic" to point out the facts or to want an honest cost accounting. You need to stop with these unfounded personal attacks. Most grid-PV advocates, like you in your analysis, don't ever include the cost others are paying for the grid-PV user's storage system and then conclude grid-PV is economical. It is; but only because they are free loaders on those paying for their storage system.
I do agree that grid-PV can expand several times still before the cost of these "free loaders" to individual non-PV customers of the power company becomes high enough for them to revolt and demand that there be a separated charge for the connection, even if it is not used.
For example if your house has 100Amp connection you pay half the fixed capital cost charge of someone with a 200Amp connection. That would be a fair an honest accounting, but make grid-PV less attractive. I.e. the total capital in the allowed rate base divided by the total amps of all connections is the "connection charge" (per connected service amp) which you pay, even if you never use a single KWH. Then you also pay for the energy you used, which could be negative for the grid PV customer if he has run the meter backwards more than forward.
I don't like subsidies, hidden or open. I want systems evaluated honestly on their merits. You can and should recognize the PV energy does not release CO2, so the analysis should include a "carbon credit" for the grid-PV customer - I.e. when running the meter backwards he reduces the CO2 release by coal fired generation etc, but not for the fraction of the electric company’s energy production that is for example, hydro or nuclear, etc.
While true the company is not paying off loans on the oldest power plants that has nothing to do with how you are charged for power. The public services commission allows a Rate of Return, RoR, on the on line capital, paid off or not. Usually both the rate base and the RoR are adjusted annually. The Three Mile Island nuclear plant was placed on line 31 December to get its capital cost included in the next year’s rate base, even though several of the safety system pumps were not yet installed.
BTW, many older and fuel inefficient plants are still "on line" and mainly used as quasi peaking units (Must be an anticipated peak as unlike NG turbine, it takes time to get the steam up) to avoid having them drop out of the capital rate base.
I agree that system interconnections do reduce the total capital required, but it is still at least 80% of your electric bill, so don't understand your claim "As far as peak loads go, no they are not that big of an issue..."
It is precisely these peak loads that make up the capital requirements that make up >80% of your electric bill. Electric bills are a "big issue" for many and will become more so, when they realize they are paying for "free loaders."
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the link; however it seems to be an improvement upon the iron battery I knew of before 2004 (As I recall). Also the link does not stress their low cost, their nearly indestructible nature i.e. 50+ year life times and unlimited deep discharge cycles, etc. The main draw back is they are heavy and bulky - OK for sitting in your basement and letting you run house on only the lowest cost power.