1 billion dollar solar energy ponzi scheme (heater, heat pump, installers, electricity)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is just incorrect. Utilities operate with 15-20% reserve margins.
So then, what? When the weather shuts down the wind and solar, are you telling us that we will only have 20% power available, and we will just have to live with that?
Currently, when wind and solar shut down due to weather (they occasionally put out approximately zero), hydro (the only renewable that makes sense, but is limited) nuclear, coal, and gas take over, providing near 100% of our needs. When "renewables" provide 50%, it will mean we will have 50% backup redundancy, or we will have to make do with only 50% of current grid capacity.
So then, what? When the weather shuts down the wind and solar, are you telling us that we will only have 20% power available, and we will just have to live with that?
Currently, when wind and solar shut down due to weather (they occasionally put out approximately zero), hydro (the only renewable that makes sense, but is limited) nuclear, coal, and gas take over, providing near 100% of our needs. When "renewables" provide 50%, it will mean we will have 50% backup redundancy, or we will have to make do with only 50% of current grid capacity.
Don't worry. There are armies of engineers who analyze system reliability. Those studies drive reserve requirements. Your assumption that all renewables go down at the same time is really unsupported by history for situation other than extreme weather and the system goes down anyway in extreme weather.
So then, what? When the weather shuts down the wind and solar, are you telling us that we will only have 20% power available, and we will just have to live with that?
Currently, when wind and solar shut down due to weather (they occasionally put out approximately zero), hydro (the only renewable that makes sense, but is limited) nuclear, coal, and gas take over, providing near 100% of our needs. When "renewables" provide 50%, it will mean we will have 50% backup redundancy, or we will have to make do with only 50% of current grid capacity.
It never all drops simultaneously, as there's always power generated from wind somewhere and they'll use hydro to balance the load out some. And nighttime load is generally lighter so solar is off when the grid is lighter. You don't have to duplicate renewable generation with fossil fuel load, but you do have to have a say 20% or so overlap for reserve.
BUT, each additional incremental % of power that comes from renewables with their highly variable generation makes balancing the grid trickier and trickier, meaning the additional benefit of more renewables goes down the more renewables we have, as that power has to be transported farther, wasting more energy, and the ability for hydro or gas turbines to balance the peaks and troughs becomes harder and harder.
This is why goals of 100% renewable or 100% carbon free by 2050 are bulls***. The only way you could do that is with massive amounts of batteries, which are still relatively highly inefficient.
It never all drops simultaneously, as there's always power generated from wind somewhere and they'll use hydro to balance the load out some. And nighttime load is generally lighter so solar is off when the grid is lighter. You don't have to duplicate renewable generation with fossil fuel load, but you do have to have a say 20% or so overlap for reserve.
BUT, each additional incremental % of power that comes from renewables with their highly variable generation makes balancing the grid trickier and trickier, meaning the additional benefit of more renewables goes down the more renewables we have, as that power has to be transported farther, wasting more energy, and the ability for hydro or gas turbines to balance the peaks and troughs becomes harder and harder.
This is why goals of 100% renewable or 100% carbon free by 2050 are bulls***. The only way you could do that is with massive amounts of batteries, which are still relatively highly inefficient.
This is spot on. I'll observe that more climate deniers talk about 100% renewables than renewable proponents. In addition, a portfolio of 100% renewables would almost certainly include more than wind and pv. Geothermal, biomass, and hydro are of course dispatchable and firm resources, which can provide grid support.
In addition we are at the early stages of controllable load. It will be relatively inexpensive to build load shedding capabilities into household and commercial appliances. All we really need are industry standard communication protocols and some incentives. Electric cooperatives have been controlling electric water heaters and air conditioning units for 30-40 years.
Semantics and arguments aside, my roof top system just produced 27.7 kWH today- running backwards on the meter. That’s early March.
In Montana.
For an all electric house sans pellet stove, propane cook stove and fireplace.... I’m happy
By my math, and I’m in commercial finance, that’s a 7 year, 7 month break-even on investment, right sizing for winter.
Not bad in my book. I’ll take the money and run, lol.
The only thing you aren't factoring into the equation is you are getting paid a flat, reverse meter rate, but you are supplying the grid electricity at a variable market rate.
If you were to get paid the instantaneous market rate for your electrical contributions instead of a flat market rate, how would your calculus change?
The only thing you aren't factoring into the equation is you are getting paid a flat, reverse meter rate, but you are supplying the grid electricity at a variable market rate.
If you were to get paid the instantaneous market rate for your electrical contributions instead of a flat market rate, how would your calculus change?
In that case, unless you were being paid the differential (what the electric distributor would get for supplying the electricity to another customer, minus the expenses incurred for transport, distribution, and other associated costs), the effect would be that whoever was paying for that electricity would be giving you a massive subsidy, by stealing from other producers.
The reverse meter rate is designed to accommodate, in a simplified fashion, the overhead associated with redistribution of the power produced and introduced into the grid. If it were a variable rate, there would be times the reverse meter rate would actually fall below zero, due to redistribution, and other management, costs.
Semantics and arguments aside, my roof top system just produced 27.7 kWH today- running backwards on the meter. That’s early March.
In Montana.
For an all electric house sans pellet stove, propane cook stove and fireplace.... I’m happy
.
All Electric? What else is there needed besides juice to turn on your lights?
Given that the average insolation for MT in March is <4.5 hrs/d, https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar...n-hours-us-map you must have a 6kW system at a minimum. Lighting only makes up 10% of the average American elect. bill (~$100/m) ie- your system is only saving you $10/ month. Perhaps a re-calculation of your ROI is in order.....
….https://understandsolar.com/6kw-solar-system/ Average cost of a 6kW installation, after your parasitic reliance on taxpayer subsidies, is $12,000....Saving $10/m, it would take 100 yrs for the system to break even for you.
I suspect the truth really lies somewhere between my estimate and yours. ...In regards your happiness, perhaps a review of Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance is in order.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 03-10-2020 at 04:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
