The Gaming Den

angelfromanotherpin wrote:What about this?

I just poked around there website, and it appears that the case isn't quite as good as you mean belive, not only has it not been commercialised as far as I can see, if you read the follow on reports they actually come in at 300% of the cost and 70% of their stated effiency. It appears that they come in at somewhere between 4 and 5 dollars a watt (installed) and coal comes in at 2.10

But thats still a poor comparison because they haven't bothered to publish any third party studies showing an installed cost per kilowatt hour, including relevant costs for stored power, which is the only relevant metric for assessing costs.

Though I'll settle for, at the moment, cost per kilowatt hour.

Many sites have calculators and estimates of installation costs and output of systems, cthu.

That's where I got my numbers, tho I inflated it up a bit.

Thing is, who wants a $20K roof?

-Crissa

Many sites have caculations for residental systems yes, but as I pointed out previously we're talking about a 'whole of society' system here, so it has to be able to provide for zinc smelters and CBD office blocks.

So I'm looking for a per kw/h cost benchmarked against coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro etc.

incidentally, this http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46003.pdf says that micro generation is completely uneconomical in the UK without billions of dollars of subsidies, and even then would have no impact on carbon emissions.

Now thats using wind and solar. The UK is just a bit less sunny than california of course, but it is pretty windy. Your call on that, but I'm not exactly convinced by the microgen message.

It seems like the situation will still require large scale grid connected power gen, and that must be provided by.. something.

I wait with anticipation for costed estimates by reputable agencies about what that something might be if its not the existing big three of coal, nuclear or gas.

I just don't think those studies are using the same numbers. We're talking acres and acres of rooftops which wouldn't need as much AC and yet would be producing electricity.

Houses just don't use that much juice.

And zinc/aluminum/iron smelters can buy their juice from hydro and whatever as they always have. They aren't the majority of energy usage.

They're saying it's 'uneconomical' to make a $20K purchase for every household in the land. In a way, they're right. And in a big way they're wrong. How much did they spend on the Iraq war so far?

-Crissa

I'm an Australian citing a UK study, why is the cost the US paid for the Iraq war relevant? Seems like you've got your wires crossed there.

I appreciate Americans are sometimes unwilling to understand that across the pacific and atlantic there are other countries that are not iran, iraq and north korea, but please, I haven't cited the US view on anything at all so far.

Please take that joke as it was meant! There is a great chasers clip where Americans repeatedly mis-identify australia as Iran and north korea.

Onto the british report.

I'll repeat that, its over 21 billion pounds of subsidies up front and 5.5 billion pounds per annum required to make it economical, and even then it only reduces carbon generation by low single percentage points. You're giving me anecdotal evidence?

I wait with anticipation for your cost analysis study of solar compared to other power production.

I'll round out by comparing it to something irrelevant. The NHS costs 60-70 billion pounds per annum, so 21 billion pounds for a few percentage off carbon as opposed to 1/3rd of the national healthcare scheme seems excessive.

Also you're thing about zinc smelters not being the majority of elecricity usage is flat out wrong.

Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2005

Everyone uses electricity. The table below shows how electricity use is split between different groups of users. Industry and domestic users are the largest single groups of users in the UK, each consuming about 34% of the total electricity used.

Sector Electricity Use, GWh (2004) Percentage of total consumption

Industry 117,149 34.45%

Transport 8,034 2.36%

Domestic 115,526 33.97%

Public administration 20,924 6.15%

Commercial 74,215 21.83%

Agriculture 4,194 1.23%

Total 340,043 100%

So, back to large scale power generation (Because as we just demonstrated, even if you took all the houses off the grid, you still need to find power for everyone else)

Umm, your Zinc smelters aren't even 34% of your total there.

That sorta jives with my 'not the majority'.

It's certainly the largest grouping, though.

-Crissa

PS, I don't recall the UK being uninvolved in the Iraq war, nor the Aussies.

Crissa wrote:Umm, your Zinc smelters aren't even 34% of your total there.

That sorta jives with my 'not the majority'.

It's certainly the largest grouping, though.

-Crissa

PS, I don't recall the UK being uninvolved in the Iraq war, nor the Aussies.

The UK forces were part of the 'coalition' that went over there.

Zinc smelters were an arbitary example - I'm just pointing out that the majority isn't domestic. In the post where I mentioned that first, I said zinc smelters and CBD office blocs (industrial and commercial usage)

And yeah, but the UK and AUS spent quite a considerably smaller amount of money (even relatively).

Incidentally in that previous one, the 5.5 billion pound subsidy is the amount that the UK spends on defense procurement annually. You might disagree with defense spending, I'm just pointing out that the UK might not spend as much as you think, and 5.5 billion pound is a stupid amount of money.

So anyway, that study comparing solar per kw/h costs for 'whole of society' power generation to coal, nuclear and gas, any leads? I'm still not finding one.

www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-11-24_500-03-080F.PDF

Californian report that concludes the average cost of coal is 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour (aligning with the Euro report, though at the top end of the coal scale) and 12.1 cents per kilowatt hour for solar.

So using the top values that gives us

Coal: 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour

Nuclear: 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour

Solar: 12.1 cents per kilowatt hour

It looks like using solar over nuclear involves a very significant cost premium here. Infact, even if we need to use breeders to make fuel at the cost of 1400 for a ton of ore equivelence, nuclear fuel comes out at.. 6.5 cents a kwh? a bit less.

And california is a prime location for solar generation too.

I think at this point the arguement is do you think we should deal with

A) a 50% increase in energy prices and nuclear waste (remember that this includes 'cost estimates' for waste disposal already, so its just the actual 'is nuclear waste in a big hole' an acceptable idea problem)

B) a 200% increase in energy prices and solar panels

A has very definite advantages in my opinion.

Yes, this is because you're looking at what it costs to build and produce. And yes, CA is high because all coal would have to be imported.

Those numbers don't include the cost for the environment. I don't understand your recalcitrance here; of course coal and nuclear are cheap - they don't pay for their impacts to the environment, and have significantly shorter material shelf-lives.

That's like saying running your truck is cheap - when you didn't pay for the road. Then comparing it to a train, which has to include building a track. If there were no road, your truck wouldn't be competitive.

-Crissa

Did you see that the cost of power had two coloums in the example I cited previously - the second one for the cost of of a carbon tax?

Reflecting perhaps the true costs of coal? Only once the tax was in of course!

Did you see that the nuclear costs included overhead for the decommissioning of the plant and contribution to the disposal of waste - that true cost bit?

Nuclear power could double in costs to and you'd still be head of solar by 3/kilowatt hour.

Incidentally, you pay for the road when you run your truck, as I think you live in the US. Doesn't the US fuel taxes go towards road maintenance?

The Australian ones go in general revenue, but they more than cover the cost of roads and other associated service.

It is not really recalcitrance, I've given considerable thought to the relative positioning of power technologies. I invest in a geothermal plant with my own dollars as I consider that a good idea (Geodynamics)

I do not consider solar a good idea because the costs are so high, i don;t think the environmental impact is as low profile as you might think - though it is definately less than coal!

I think natural gas is unacceptable, wind demonstrably doesn't work as a way to actually decommission coal powerplants and has high environmental impacts (see: Denmark, noise, killing birds).

essentially you have to sell me that its worth paying the extra 100% to get solar, and that the same reduction in environmental impact couldn't be achieved with nuclear.

Also, you have to convince me that solar will not just result in a massive outsourcing spree to china. It would really piss me off to see all the manufacturing for a less efficient subsidized technology outsourced, when we could clearly benefit by in sourcing it all, resulting in a greater boost to our GDP.

After all, shipping subsidies overseas is not exactly sound fiscal policy, though I do support free trade. Just that nuclear power is something Australia will have competitive advantages for, and solar not so much.

Plus while I'm in favour of a tax on carbon, and a tax to reflect the costs of appropriate waste disposal, not sure I'm hot on subsidies.

Yeah, the carbon tax obviously isn't useful if it brings the cost of coal to the current cost of coal in my state...

Apparently, you don't believe any of the numbers I have, and believe your own numbers, given by states that have vested interests in nuclear or coal technology.

Whatever.

-Crissa

PS: No, fuel taxes do not in any state actually cover the cost of the road system, in a few states it covers the cost of operating, but not maintaining. The few states that have had maintenance in the cost of vehicle registrations have had that reversed on initiative by right-wing kill-government nuts. And fuel taxes don't help when they apply to all vehicles, on road or not.

The point of my posts was that solar power technology is getting better all the time. It is becoming more applicable, more efficient, and much cheaper every year; and that's not really true of either fossil fuels or nuclear. Investing in solar is also a really sound idea, because the fuel for it isn't going to run out for approximately ever, and every advance is going to pay dividends for longer than human civilization will care about.

Look, there's a lot of shit that's impossible to predict. Nobody really knows anything about macroeconomics. But when you have to make a decision with a lot of unknowns, you make the decision based on what you do know. And we know that oil is a limited-supply directly-polluting resource, and that coal is a limited-supply directly-polluting resource, and that nuclear is a limited-supply directly-polluting resource. And that solar is neither limited-supply nor directly-polluting. If the cost to use it is only +100%, we should fucking grab it with both hands.

It's also worth remembering what the indirect cost of our power supplies have been. How many of our citizens have died in struggles to control oil? How many other countries' citizens? How many people have died coal mining? How many have died uranium mining?

Now, how many people have died from producing and installing solar panels? Even proportionately speaking, I think we have a clear winner.

Yeah, the carbon tax obviously isn't useful if it brings the cost of coal to the current cost of coal in my state...

Apparently, you don't believe any of the numbers I have, and believe your own numbers, given by states that have vested interests in nuclear or coal technology.

Whatever.

-Crissa

California has a vested intrest in nuclear power? The EU does? Germany is the biggest installer of home solar powers in the world. Heck, iit has more capacity than everyone else combined.

I guess that means that they have a vested interest in nuclear power... or not.

Also: What numbers have you provided? You linked to the DoE retail numbers, which is great, which shows that coal is 12 cents average and Solar is 24 cents average, and didn't have anything I could see for nuclear. If it has nuclear numbers please tell me what they are, but currently I think this proves my case (because nukes will come in at a bit 16-18ish, which is cheaper than solar)

please link me to a credible report, I've provided several now and asked you several times for one, you've said 'some numbers I got off an online calculator (and didn't provide) say its cheaper per kilowatt hour than coal' which is manifestly not even close to true.

So I went to an Australian online calculator, and they said, well, it works if you have a great north facing site and a feed in tarriff.

Solar power is currently the most expensive type of renewable energy. The industry states that at present rates, it’ll take 15 to 20 years for a system to pay for itself. But payback times vary widely depending on a range of variables. For example, the NSW case study shows that a large system in a state without government mandated gross feed-in tariffs could take 50 years or more to pay for itself.

Australian Consumer advocacy group, not affiliated with anyone. Note that the large installation only pays 58% of costs.

The guys who do get it to pay for itself have this huge feed in tarriff subsidized by the government.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.as ... g+the+cost

Please, a detailed report by independent experts. I don't mind if the independent experts have somewhat shakey credibility. I've given you 4 now (NZ academic study, California government study, UK government study, American solar industry study)

@angelfromanotherpin: You might be surprised

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02595.html

And I agree about technological advances, but I also know that it takes 5 years to commission a coal power plant. I have no particular reason to assume anything else will take less time, because most of that is planning, linking into the grid, laying new cables to the sites etc.

So assuming you want to cut carbon by 2020 by, say, 60%, you pretty much need to start building large scale power generation right now otherwise its not going to be finished in time. Solar cannot be built right now (well, it can but its insanely expensive), carbon capture cannot be built right now. Nuclear can.

Anyway if we are waiting for jesus science to save us, we may as well sit around and wait for fusion power.

It doesn't take five years to commission a roof. And that roof last for a long, long time. And it reduces the weight on the electrical grid. And it shades an area, reducing need for AC, the largest use for electricity at peak hours. Yes, larger than your zinc smelters.

And Germany is where Nanosolar manufactures their goods, strangely enough.

-Crissa

Okay, but the independant study cited above said microgeneration requires massive subsidies to be cost effective for users, and will only reduce carbon emissions by single digit percentages (they actually used 'negligable' but the UK isn't exactly super sunny so I imagine other people could do better) - so we merely need to attack the remaining 71% of carbon emissions.

Germany is even a great example of the low cost effectiveness actually.

They provided government sponsored low cost loans and a feed in tarriff, and got a boom in installation, but then they took away just the low cost credit - so if you wish to purchase with credit you need to fund that yourself privately - and installations have slumped because now its not worth it.

As for private large scale industry installations.. when the feds are picking up 50% of your capital costs and are paying 4 x market rate for your electricity, suddenly its a total no brainer to invest there. Infact, assuming your generation costs are actually 12 cents, and you're being paid 16 cents, thats profit right there, but of course you got half the tab paid for by the feds for setting up in east germany, so your actual cost will be less than half that (you're much better off when you don't have to take a loan), so suddenly you're cruising.

Of course that assumes you're willing to let the price of your energy quadruple, which won't be popular.

I'd like to see your study of the effectiveness of large scale microgeneration that says this is cost effect for nations to be embarking on.

Currently, all I can see is reports and case studies that all say "Inefficient and requires massive government subsidies otherwise other alternatives are cheaper"

Yeah, 'cause the studies are generally by governments with reason not to invest in it, or not enough sunlight to matter.

Apparently the point that paying for an installation pays for it self over 20 years flew right past you somewhere several pages back...

-Crissa

cthulhu wrote:@angelfromanotherpin: You might be surprised

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02595.html

Did you read the part of the article where dumping that waste is a corner-cutting measure that's illegal in developed countries because the waste is actually recyclable?

That's a failure of morality, not technology.

Anyway if we are waiting for jesus science to save us, we may as well sit around and wait for fusion power.

Yes, because fusion power and solar power are at even close to the same level of development. After all, one is used as a supplemental in countries around the world, and the other is still a pipe dream.

Crissa wrote:Yeah, 'cause the studies are generally by governments with reason not to invest in it, or not enough sunlight to matter.

Apparently the point that paying for an installation pays for it self over 20 years flew right past you somewhere several pages back...

-Crissa

Apparently the consumer advocacy group study that I linked you that indicated that it doesn't pay for itself in 20 years without massive government subsidies flew right past you on this page.

I'll link it again if you'd like

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.as ... g+the+cost

Infact, without said subsidies, break even on a case study was 58 years, and please note that they projected from the 6 months over summer, so its likely to be longer.

Operating lifespan of the panels is not 58 years.

The guys who do get break even benefit from a fairly substantial subsidy.

And these guys arn't even doing a discounted cash flow analysis, so its hugely un economical despite the payments of:

A) A rebate

B) Carbon Credits

C) above market rate feed in tariff

A family on sydney's northern beaches (quite sunny), had a 25 year break even point.

The best bit is this is the most crude form of analysis - its just summing the annual returns until it equals the inital outlay.

But I could have stuck my money in a bank account instead and got 5% interest risk free - though presumably the solar panel would be a hedge against inflation, so assuming a deposit rate of 6% and a inflation rate of 3.5, thats a break even period of 37 years even in the subsidized case study.

Yay, government subsidies give you 37 years break even.

home solar panels are not a purely rational decision, you are making a decision that you support the principles behind it, and are choosing to spend money on that 'feel good' factor.

You are welcome to that choice, but it is not the most cost effective use of your money - depending on the value you assign that feeling.

Interestingly, as my household earns to much money, I do not personally qualify for the rebate on solar panel installations in Australia.

So if I redo the analysis with just that component of the subsidy removed, even with the feed in tariff, and assuming I lived 300kms north and it is permantly spring, summer and autumn with no winter, my break even period is 35 years in raw form, and over 70 years if I use a DCF analysis.

So, please, drop the 'microgeneration is cost effective' line. It isn't unless the government gives you big piles of money to do it and even then it might still not be cost effective. Most studies indicate a 25 year lifespan for the panels minimum and say they may last substantially longer, but indicate that other system components will have to be overhauled (with a fresh capital injection) at or before that point.

So not going to slice it with a 35+ year repayment time haha.

@Angel

Yeah, that is true, but the lower price caused by the cost cutting is what gets the unit price down on solar panels which is part of the reason for the recent boom in solar investment. If your take away the artificially cheap product as a result, the ROI calculation blows right out. Its like the lack of a carbon tax for coal, its making the price artifically cheap due to a negative externality . Correct the externality and the cost of solar will increase.

As for the remaining point, well, hey, doesn't that support nuclear as that is very low emissions technology that current accounts for the majority of some countries generation, with only one tricky issue left to solve - admittedly it is a real doozy.

Unlike solar where we still need a better cell, and we need a better battery.

But yeah, its a tough situation - I'm still pretty convinced though after running though the data that nuclear power is the cheapest of the very low carbon power generation mechanisms - all available evidence supports that nuclear is (considerably) the lowest of the low carbon generation schemes and is a proven technology.

The downsides are

A) No political will to commission a permenant nuclear waste site. This is a serious and considerable risk.

The reality is we need one eventually somewhere because just the Australian Lucas Heights Reactor which makes medical isotypes produces nuclear waste that needs management

B) Uncertain commerical enviroment - without government support to ensure that things happen without endless changes, private sector will not fund nuclear power plants because they've been burnt by the US experince.

Conversely Solar has no risks from the buy in front, everyone supports that. The downsides are

A) Higher cost of generation per kilowatt hour - It's going to cost twice as much as nuclear power. I'm not sure people will accept this, particularly given the situation with pensioners and low income earners. I suppose we could just tell them to turn of their fridges, but yeah.

B) Unresolved situation for power generation outside of daytime. Assume we go for the central generation system out in the desert - which would get very good coverage - what do you do for power after dark? Peak time for power consumption in Australia is 2-8pm, a big chunk of which is after dark.

The best mechanism I've seen - which I rather like - is using the visible light spectrum to warm up water than use surplus electricity generated during the day to make hydrogen to be burnt after dark.

But no one has demonstrated that the second part of that can actually work, and that the there is cost effectiveness.

Ocean thermal energy sounds interesting is you don't mind heat pollution in the ocean depths. Nothing is limitless or clean in the real world.

Interestingly, I did see an article on solar cells that also (only?) absorb energy from the infrared spectrum.

Plus side: You get INSANE amounts of power most of the day.

Down Side: The current is so strong that no resistor in existence can stand it. The frequency is something like, 1 TRILLION or higher per second.

So assuming we can get the current down to a useable level, we'd totally have the power thing licked.

Reminds me of a shortstory by Robert A. Heinlein involving this technology. Inventor makes solar cells that absorb infrared, then ends up making IR heaters (to replace the older sorts), and even energy reclamation via panels near heat-producing machines in industry. It was speculative fiction from the 50s, but yeah.

Edit: Ah. Seems that last link says something similar to my point. Ah well. I'll try to find the article I was referencing tonight.

re: my previous point about solar manufacturing being outsourced to low cost countries due to weak enviromental regulations, solar cell manufacturing plan in australia just got closed to be outsourced to an unspecified low cost country.

But as the company already manufactures in India and China, pretty sure I can guess where that is going to be.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

Why are you still wanking over your "china is bad" point?

Hasn't it been established that is standard industry procedure for every damn thing?

You are useless to talk to, you repeatedly ignore everyone's points and even if pushed into an admission that one of yours is wrong if not constantly reminded of it you go back to repeating it again five posts later...

That's why it's important to have import rules that require specified equal or higher regulations for labor and environmental impacts.

-Crissa