Solar power

[jderimig]

It would be more expensive to continue feeding an archaic grid with fossil fuel generated electricity.

Not only are we going to continue to feed the grid with fossil fuel electricity we are adding more. From IEA world report 2022.

Global electricity generation increased by 2.3% in 2022. . . . Renewables (excluding hydro) met 84% of net electricity demand growth in 2022.

After spending over $1 Trillion per year (globally) on renewables over the last 4 years, not only has renewables failed to displace existing fossil fuel generation it could not even keep up with demand growth.

Here’s the big picture:

• Primary energy demand . . . in 2022 increas[ed] 1.1%. . . .
• Global electricity generation increased by 2.3% in 2022 . . . .
• Fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of primary energy remained steady at 82%. . . .
• Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use, industrial processes, flaring and methane (in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) continued to rise to a new high growing 0.8% in 2022 to 39.3 GtCO2e, with emissions from energy use rising 0.9% to 34.4 GtCO2.
  Bottom line: it’s now $1 trillion per year, plus or minus, invested in wind and solar “renewables” plus grid upgrades and energy storage needed to accommodate them. And for that vast sum of money, the percent of primary energy from fossil fuels does not budge by even a tenth of a percent. And, as world energy consumption increases, carbon emissions just continue to increase. The trillion is just completely wasted.

 

[kuririn]

Global electricity generation increased by 2.3% in 2022. . . . Renewables (excluding hydro) met 84% of net electricity demand growth in 2022.

The trillion is just completely wasted.

Bottom line: it’s now $1 trillion per year, plus or minus, invested in wind and solar “renewables” plus grid upgrades and energy storage needed to accommodate them. And for that vast sum of money, the percent of primary energy from fossil fuels does not budge by even a tenth of a percent.

If it had been 0$ instead of a trillion, how much worse would fossil fuel consumption have been?
Think about it.

Edit: The world is in the nascent stage of green energy production. Four years is not a good time frame for analysis. The same figures in 2030 or 2040 would be more telling, once things have started ramping up.
Necro this thread then and let's look at the data.

 

[jderimig]

If it had been 0$ instead of a trillion, how much worse would fossil fuel consumption have been?
Think about it.

2% more and a $Trillion more (per year) that could have spent on healthcare, poverty, infrastructure, clean water, R&D, education, Africa modernization, etc.

 

[kuririn]

2% more and a $Trillion more (per year) that could have spent on healthcare, poverty, infrastructure, clean water, R&D, education, Africa modernization, etc.

Same could be said about the $1 trillion spent by world governments on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022.

 

[Donnager]

Our tv news tonight had a story on solar power for homes. I don't know how accurate any of the figures are.

Their claim was a system for an average house would cost $20-25k to install, minus some tax incentives that might be available. The average system would save $1,000-1,500 per year off of the electric bill. This sounded a bit low to me. The last claim was that it would take 16-25 years to break even.

The unfortunate reality is, that if you (our society), collectively, want solar power, ALL of these panels will need to be installed to preserve our grid. It doesn't really matter if its in some field in the desert or on your roof. Supplied kWh will be the same. The further from the end user, the more expensive.

Further, and far more importantly, there is not investment adequate to support off hours power production. Not remotely enough 'batteries' to back up the solar and wind being used. I don't believe there's enough lithium on the planet to handle off hours storage. There's certainly no infrastructure to support this.

And the peaker plants are being shut down as fast as possible.

 

[OzHybrid]

Lets say you have $20K to spend on a home solar system, and you would like a payback in 10 years. 10 years returns on a conservative portfolio are about 6% annual. In 10 year that $20K would have grown to $35K. If your solar system hasn't returned $35K in savings net of repairs and maintenance, you have not made the best investment. Of course there are other vectors of value some may have with home solar, like independence, cool factor, hobby, feel good etc that are not to be discounted at all. But for most situations, financial performance is not one of them.

The cost of electricity has gone up 50% in the last 2 years here in Australia. The ROI quoted is based on the price of electricity at the time not it's future price, which is what is causing the payback period for me to be significantly lower than 10 years.

Certainly, it's a big chunk of money to have to make a decision about. 2nd biggest after buying a house.

There are a LOT of confusing options out there and the snake oil salesmen don't make things easier. The government and the power companies would like you to remain connected to the grid so that your solar and battery system can stabalise the existing grid. The installers will want to sell you Tesla Powerwall as a storage solution. Does what it says on the box. And it only needs 1 cable to work. Easy for them to install. The Mercedes of power storage. At a Mercedes price. But from an efficiency perspective, it's a lossy solution. solar needs to be converted to mains and the mains then needs to be converted back down to charge the battery and the battery has to be converted back up to main when you use power. At each stage the conversion is quite efficient, but when you multiply them all together, it's lossy.

The short version is that solar will not be possible for everyone. Too hot and it won't work, too cold and you will probably have snow on it. Too windy and it might not be in Kansas anymore. So your solution might be different. It might be staying connected to the grid and buying electricity from it.

 

[DEmery]

Same could be said about the $1 trillion spent by world governments on fossil fuel subsidies in 2022.

I read that report, it is crap. They consider things like a reduction in the gasoline tax (which is a penalty for using gas) as a subsidy.

 

[OzHybrid]

I read that report, it is crap. They consider things like a reduction in the gasoline tax (which is a penalty for using gas) as a subsidy.

Tax for fuel used in road traffic is supposed to finance the cost of roads and the pollution it causes. If the cost of those things has decreased then a reduction in tax is justified. If it's not then road usage by vehicles is being subsidised at the expense of other things the government should be financing. Fuel is being sold at less than the true total cost. Making the fuel seem cheaper than it should be. It's being subsidised.
Of course, these things are complex, making any assertion by either side difficult to prove. But if fuel tax was reduced, you would have to ask why.

 

[kuririn]

I read that report, it is crap. They consider things like a reduction in the gasoline tax (which is a penalty for using gas) as a subsidy.

Don't know which report you read, but I'm referring to the IEA report on "Fossil Fuel Consumption Subsidies 2022".
https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022The International Energy Agency is an intergovernmental organization comprised of 31 member states and 13 associated countries. The US is a founding member.
The IEA has received criticism for having a bias against renewable energy. So if that's true then I would think the $1 trillion figure is an underestimate.

 

[DEmery]

That is the report I read. I disagree with their assessment. If a government caps diesel prices, that helps consumers but certainly is not a subsidy to the petroleum company, they actually take the hit.

 

[kuririn]

That is the report I read. I disagree with their assessment. If a government caps diesel prices, that helps consumers but certainly is not a subsidy to the petroleum company, they actually take the hit.

You're right, it's not a subsidy to the company.
(Edit: it's a "subsidy" to the consumer).
The IEA defines a subsidy as anything that keeps the price of a fossil fuel below the market value, i.e. artificially low.
And this is where disagreements between opposing sides over the definitions occur.
The point is, if someone says that a trillion dollars could have been better used to improve healthcare, poverty, infrastructure, clean water, R&D, education, Africa modernization, etc. then why ignore the huge amount being spent to keep fossil fuel prices less volatile?
Or the money spent by nations on their space programs for that matter?
Selective vision is the same as close mindedness.
One needs to look at both sides of the coin.

 

[icyclops]

What most don’t tell you is that any solar panel looses some percentage of its ability to convert solar energy into electrical energy. I believe even the best panels only have a full 80-90% spectrum at 10-12 yrs….then it goes down from there. So when you calculate return and solar efficiency, that needs to be accounted for and can change your equation. They are improving the types of panels each year, but the cheapest ones still operate using the same substances to some degree…no solar seller guarantees that their efficiency will stay at 90% over 10-12 yrs.

 

[boatgeek]

What most don’t tell you is that any solar panel looses some percentage of its ability to convert solar energy into electrical energy. I believe even the best panels only have a full 80-90% spectrum at 10-12 yrs….then it goes down from there. So when you calculate return and solar efficiency, that needs to be accounted for and can change your equation. They are improving the types of panels each year, but the cheapest ones still operate using the same substances to some degree…no solar seller guarantees that their efficiency will stay at 90% over 10-12 yrs.

LG begs to differ. Their warranted solar output is:
95% of nameplate for the first 5 years, with a reduction of 0.4%/year for the next 20 years

That's 93% of nameplate at 10 years and 87% of nameplate after 25 years.

https://www.lg.com/us/business/download/resources/BT00002151/BT00002151_2573.pdf
Also "Most don't tell you..." is an utter crock. We've received several bids for solar, and the performance over time was in every single one.

 

[icyclops]

LG begs to differ. Their warranted solar output is:
95% of nameplate for the first 5 years, with a reduction of 0.4%/year for the next 20 years

That's 93% of nameplate at 10 years and 87% of nameplate after 25 years.

https://www.lg.com/us/business/download/resources/BT00002151/BT00002151_2573.pdf
Also "Most don't tell you..." is an utter crock. We've received several bids for solar, and the performance over time was in every single one.

And it is inflated no doubt…..0.4% is good marketing fritter.

 

[Peartree]

What most don’t tell you is that any solar panel looses some percentage of its ability to convert solar energy into electrical energy. I believe even the best panels only have a full 80-90% spectrum at 10-12 yrs….then it goes down from there. So when you calculate return and solar efficiency, that needs to be accounted for and can change your equation. They are improving the types of panels each year, but the cheapest ones still operate using the same substances to some degree…no solar seller guarantees that their efficiency will stay at 90% over 10-12 yrs.

Really doesn't matter.

After the "payback period" however you define it, any and all electricity generation is money in your pocket or, in the currently popular phrase, "passive income." From that income stream, you should easily be able to upgrade/expand an existing system to compensate for the half percent annual losses.

Further, one of the benefits, beyond any perceived investment value, is the way that it changes household cash flow.

 

[boatgeek]

And it is inflated no doubt…..0.4% is good marketing fritter.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by inflated. If you mean that they artificially increased the expected loss so that they'll minimize their warranty payouts to the very bottom of the bell curve, then that means that the average consumer will see less loss of power. If you mean that they're inflating their performance and the panels will see higher losses, it'll be a nice warranty payout for people who have their panels (ie me).

 

[OzHybrid]

The life performance expectation of solar panels is in the specification for every panel I've come across. I'm not sure there is any case for "what they're not telling you" on this.
https://www.adelaidesolarsafe.com.au/docs/suntech/STP_250_W_datasheet.pdf Suntech 250W panel bottom left of first page. Sun incidence performance on 2nd page.

 

[Cape Byron]

They buy it because they need electricity period. And it returns the most savings IN THE LONG RUN than being connected to the grid, depending on individual circumstances.

We're doing it for reliability. The grid in regional Oz is pretty flaky.

The installers will want to sell you Tesla Powerwall as a storage solution. Does what it says on the box. And it only needs 1 cable to work. Easy for them to install. The Mercedes of power storage. At a Mercedes price. But from an efficiency perspective, it's a lossy solution.

It's also hideously expensive. Our entire system, giving the same storage: panels, inverter, batteries (modular and scale-able), installation and liaison with the power company is a stunning $6.00 AUD more than a bare Tesla Powerwall sitting in a box waiting to be installed. Six. Freaking. Dollars.

Six. Australian. Dollars. $4.06 US.

Anyone still want a Powerwall?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

My city must have recently signed some big contract or something, because I’m seeing large solar panel installations being built over almost every parking lot on city property.

The parking for the main city hall buildings has had solar panels for years, but now they are popping up everywhere. I live a block away from the local middle school, and as soon as school let out for summer, panels went up over a utility yard of some kind next the the school, and this week another big project is going up over the main school parking lot.

Another project is being built over the lot for a sports park about a mile away. There is another really big public park with sports fields, play grounds, skate park, pool, water park, etc. a few miles away, and they host a farmers market there. We went there about 6 weeks ago, and when we went back today, there was a big solar array over the pool parking area that wasn’t there before.

It’s very noticeable how many have gone in in just the past few months.

The power generation is obviously the main benefit, but this area is hot and sunny during the summer, and the added shade over the hot, sunny parking lots is another great benefit.

 

[BABAR]

The power generation is obviously the main benefit, but this area is hot and sunny during the summer, and the added shade over the hot, sunny parking lots is another great benefit.

I am curious how much houses and other buildings benefit simply from the SHADE provided by the solar panels during the hot part of the year.

https://earthsky.org/human-world/su...wind blowing between the panels and the roof.

 

[OzHybrid]

I am curious how much houses and other buildings benefit simply from the SHADE provided by the solar panels during the hot part of the year.

https://earthsky.org/human-world/su...wind blowing between the panels and the roof.

Interesting, but probably not my primary choice of insulation.
Air leak reduction by sealing doors and windows and gaps would be a good cheap first measure. Followed by roof insulation and curtains for windows followed by wall insulation followed by under floor insulation if possible followed by getting double glazing followed by upgrading all insulation and triple glazed windows.
Of course a properly designed home at the start is a better option than having to fix it up afterwards.

 

[AeroTech]

What most don’t tell you is that any solar panel looses some percentage of its ability to convert solar energy into electrical energy. I believe even the best panels only have a full 80-90% spectrum at 10-12 yrs….then it goes down from there. So when you calculate return and solar efficiency, that needs to be accounted for and can change your equation. They are improving the types of panels each year, but the cheapest ones still operate using the same substances to some degree…no solar seller guarantees that their efficiency will stay at 90% over 10-12 yrs.

We’ve had our 12 kWp system for nearly 9 years, and it is averaging over 99% of the NREL-estimated annual output of 22.5 MWh/year for the past 4 years. The estimated panel degradation from the manufacturer is 0.4%/year. Our system paid for itself in a little over 5 years.

 

[OzHybrid]

We’ve had our 12 kWp system for nearly 9 years, and it is averaging over 99% of the NREL-estimated annual output of 22.5 MWh/year for the past 4 years. The estimated panel degradation from the manufacturer is 0.4%/year. Our system paid for itself in a little over 5 years.

Grid tie or hybrid and batteries or off grid?

 

[BABAR]

Interesting, but probably not my primary choice of insulation.
Air leak reduction by sealing doors and windows and gaps would be a good cheap first measure. Followed by roof insulation and curtains for windows followed by wall insulation followed by under floor insulation if possible followed by getting double glazing followed by upgrading all insulation and triple glazed windows.
Of course a properly designed home at the start is a better option than having to fix it up afterwards.

Benefit of shade Absolutely in addition to rather than in place of adequate insulation and crevice sealing.

In properly designed home, seems like a good start would be a “shed-style” uni-roof with face aimed at equatorial side of the house, inclination optimized for latitude and seasonal power use. (For hot summers and mild winters, where AC is the main use, perpendicular to solar rays at summer solstice. If for powering up the car, equinox. )Maximizes most efficient surface area for panel placement.

 

[DEmery]

We’ve had our 12 kWp system for nearly 9 years, and it is averaging over 99% of the NREL-estimated annual output of 22.5 MWh/year for the past 4 years. The estimated panel degradation from the manufacturer is 0.4%/year. Our system paid for itself in a little over 5 years.

That is nice. I want to electrify my off-grid shed with solar and batteries. If 100% of my electric bill went towards the cost, it take more than 5 years to pay it off, depending on the cost of a ground mount.

 

[OzHybrid]

That is nice. I want to electrify my off-grid shed with solar and batteries. If 100% of my electric bill went towards the cost, it take more than 5 years to pay it off, depending on the cost of a ground mount.

Depends on how you do your math. What's the cost of getting grid power to your property? Are you planning to charge a vehicle in the future? Will anyone visiting you need to charge a vehicle? Do you plan to use an induction cooker instead of gas? Take the cost of gas into account. What is the cost of NOT having backup? Would you lose the contents of a freezer? What would that cost be over 20 years of the same thing happening? No internet on power loss, no CCTV coverage?
The equation is your equation, and it's different from mine or anyone else.
You said you had to deal with high wind. Maybe wind power would be better, or micro hydro or connecting to the grid and just have a generator as a backup.
Stick all your possible options in a spreadsheet with capital costs and payback costs and see what, if anything works for you.
The decision you make is a long term decision. I'd encourage a flexible system design to allow future integration with new equipment.
The equipment you choose now might not still be manufactured in 5 years let alone the 20? years you're designing for. I have a complete spare inverter ready to go.
The batteries you specified previously are rack mounted and heavy. Make sure you can lift them into place in the rack.....
Good luck on your journey
Norm

 

[DEmery]

I have gas and electricity on my property. My 20’ by 30’ shed is about 30 yards from my house. I think it would be cheaper to run a line to it. I want to run some lights, garage door opener, occasional plug in. But I want some grid independence, as our power can be unreliable in bad weather, and I could always run an extension cord to my house.

 

[OzHybrid]

I have gas and electricity on my property. My 20’ by 30’ shed is about 30 yards from my house. I think it would be cheaper to run a line to it. I want to run some lights, garage door opener, occasional plug in. But I want some grid independence, as our power can be unreliable in bad weather, and I could always run an extension cord to my house.

You can buy a diesel autostart generator for not much money. Diesel stores well, unlike petrol. If that's all you need.

 

[AeroTech]

Grid tie or hybrid and batteries or off grid?

Grid tie only. We have an NG generator for backup power, it was much less expensive than batteries.

 

[AeroTech]

That is nice. I want to electrify my off-grid shed with solar and batteries. If 100% of my electric bill went towards the cost, it take more than 5 years to pay it off, depending on the cost of a ground mount.

The batteries really add to the cost and increase the amortization time.