Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1401 - 1420 of 2953 Posts

·
1966-2013
Joined
·
13,741 Posts
Pehaps it something to do with Australia being that much closer to the equator than North America or Europe :shrug:

For as dark as it gets here in the winter for like 15~17 hours at a stretch a solar setup moot. Then you gotta get the frikkin snow off the panels every time it comes down. Ever wonder what a roof rake would do to a panel face? I know it'll rape a metal or shingle roof easily enough.

When you average over 10 feet a winter, that can get to be a huge PITA in like a week if you've got anything else to do in life besides try to maintain the system enough to get the optimum out of the 8 or so hours of actual daylight because the snow has this odd habit of not coming on a compliant user freindly schedual. In fact its more the opposite actually.

Snow during the day? Sorry, you're gonna clean it off, but you're not home so can't, though it doesn't matter because the snowfall blots out most of the light anyway. Snow at night? How early do you want to get up day after day to clear than off, plus the walks, plus the driveway, plus the vehicles if you've no garage, then go to work after all that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
That is why you have batteries ... nobody builds these systems to directly connect to solar panels. The solar panels charge batteries and the batteries then power the devices.
Yup, as I noted earlier:
I've seen the set-ups where people have solar generators that charge large banks of car batteries in the garage. I always laugh whenever the owner raves about how "green" this set up is as if those car batteries were made from happy thoughts and children's laughter, not harmful chemicals pulled out of the ground in a massive mine.
You can debate all you like, but again these things do work. There are houses in Sydney that are producing so much electricity they are propping up the main grid and getting paid for it. And new technology solar panels only need a fraction of the sun light that old panels needed too.
I'll be the first to say it's good to have a mix of generation and solar and wind have their place. However, sitting here looking at load and generation charts all day I have to say there is no way that these are the be-all, end-all that people make them out to be. Regardless of how efficient they are, they aren't a dispatchable generation that will meet the demand of the load.

How long do these batteries last on a charge? Perhaps overnight at best with nothing more than the refrigerator and a light or two on? What happens if you have an overcast day or two? I just don't see that you can feasibly make solar work without some sort of back-up supply. So now you're putting solar panels on every roof, a bank of batteries in every garage, and an back-up generator in every backyard. This is better than a large generator that can reliability provide the entire city with all the electricity it needs when they need it? That is the equivalent of having everyone drive their own car to and from work instead of using public transportation. It's just not an efficient or effective way of traveling.

Here's my favorite chart that indicate how random wind power can be (same can be said of solar). It's from Bonneville Power Administration and shows the wind generation compared to their load and other generation resources. Take away those other resources and try and provide the electricity that is demanded throughout the day with wind only...not gonna happen very often.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,647 Posts
How long do these batteries last on a charge? Perhaps overnight at best with nothing more than the refrigerator and a light or two on? What happens if you have an overcast day or two?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Will do likely next year.
I just don't see that you can feasibly make solar work without some sort of back-up supply. So now you're putting solar panels on every roof, a bank of batteries in every garage, and an back-up generator in every backyard.
Well I won't have a back-up generator in my backyard. You know we can actually survive without power for a couple of days. We don't immediately die :). We've had to in the past when storms, or excessive heat, have caused power outages.
This is better than a large generator that can reliability provide the entire city with all the electricity it needs when they need it? That is the equivalent of having everyone drive their own car to and from work instead of using public transportation. It's just not an efficient or effective way of traveling.
Your analogy is incorrect. Having solar power on every house is actually equivalent to public transport not the other way around because it is more efficient. Once these systems get sorted (which they might be already, and thus can handle 2 days without sun without needing a generator) there will be no need for power lines and all the losses and inefficiency that distribution of power costs.

It makes perfect sense, but yes it doesn't if everybody has generators as backup. Over here, Australia, that definitely won't happen, we'll just shug our shoulders and survive the couple of days minus power like we would now. I definitely won't suffer minus the internet for 2 days :). Please remember it does not get cold here let alone snow. Thus maybe solar will only be efficient enough in some countries and other solutions will need to be sort for other countries?

BTW: Solar power works on cloudy days as well now.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Will do likely next year.

Well I won't have a back-up generator in my backyard. You know we can actually survive without power for a couple of days. We don't immediately die :). We've had to in the past when storms, or excessive heat, have caused power outages.
Obviously in Australia you have a much better environment for solar but I'm still skeptical that you could rely solely on solar to provide enough electricity on a daily basis without a major investment.

You state that others in the are actually selling back excess energy to the local utility - that means they also draw from the grid when they make enough to meet their demand. As you noted you won't have a back-up generator. Does this mean you'll also be connected to the grid as well? If so, that's cheating! :p ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,647 Posts
Obviously in Australia you have a much better environment for solar but I'm still skeptical that you could rely solely on solar to provide enough electricity on a daily basis without a major investment.

You state that others in the are actually selling back excess energy to the local utility - that means they also draw from the grid when they make enough to meet their demand. As you noted you won't have a back-up generator. Does this mean you'll also be connected to the grid as well? If so, that's cheating! :p ;)
Not really because the more we generate ourselves the less our coal power stations have too, and thus they can be down sized and we all make less pollution.

That is the goal :) ... but in hindsight I've contradicted my earlier comments about getting rid of power distribution lines :eek:. But I do believe in 20 years there will be lots of houses in Australia that will not need the grid, and I also believe that they will not need generators because it is unlikely that we would not have enough power for periods longer than a couple of days.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,647 Posts
The extremely simple solution to this supposed CO2 issue is trees. All we need to do is plant a **** load of trees.

Makes perfect sense to me that we have upset the balance because we keep removing forests to allow for the ever expanding human race ... thus naturally we now have millions and millions less trees than we should have to maintain the right balance.

Basically we can never have too many trees ... so plant up. Countries like mine could plant millions of trees in barren areas. Yes there is irrigation issues, but supporting the over human population of our planet has costs.

Rather be taxed for that, than taxed for carbon.
Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,152 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,409
I love trees, but they are not going to provide power when fossil fuels get more expensive.

(I am NOT talking about "get more expensive" as in taxed - I am talking about "get more expensive" as in: a non-renewable resource will grow in scarcity as it is used up, in combination with greater demand as population increases.)

So I would rather get taxed for funds to build non-fossil fuel power generation infrastructure.

Does anyone agree? If not, why not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
When gas hits $8 a gallon, we'd better have decent public transportation like the rest of the world!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Hey everybody, I have an idea: why don't we build so dang many nuclear power plants that the only way to use their capacity is to practically give the power away.

Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
So I would rather get taxed for funds to build non-fossil fuel power generation infrastructure.

Does anyone agree? If not, why not?
Nuclear was a key "solution" in Obummers Crap and Trade bill too, along with hot air of wind and solar. For anyone babbling about fixing an imaginary problem by building nuclear plants, perhaps you will watch this:


You wont hear this on any mainstream news... - Dainius - FriendFeed

This one is just down the road from my house, and I plan to drive by it in the Cobra this afternoon, before premium hits another record high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
When gas hits $8 a gallon, we'd better have decent public transportation like the rest of the world!
Right. MT is good in Japan, etc, where population density is soooo bad, people kinda live on top of each other.

You must have a min threshold pop density for MT to work. In the USA, which has painted itself into a corner, thanks to Eisenhower and his highway system, for better or worse, MT will never work except for metro areas. One author (I read alot) called the highway system and its suburbs it serves as the biggest misallocation of resources in human history. That is big.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
Hehe.....now, with the recent wave of tornados, the greens and some weathermen are blaming Climate change (GW). So, the last record year for tornados-1974- did that happen cuz of GW? I remember Nixon being warned by his advisors that those days in the early 70's were expecting a new ice age. So global cooling AND global warming both cause tornadoes, right????????!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
As we all know, severe wind and electrical storms are caused by warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico mixing with cold air coming over the Rocky Mountains. The latter has been made cooler by increased volcanic action in Alaska and the Kamchatka, as well as by a cooling "Nino".

The greater the temperature difference, the greater the storms.

It's absurd that the hysterical crowd still stays with two-dimensional modelling that attempts to tie temperature change to CO2--only.

People around the world do not need a new controlling catechism based upon a "new" version of the Old Testament.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
898 Posts
It's absurd that the hysterical crowd still stays with two-dimensional modelling that attempts to tie temperature change to carbon--only.
That statement is not true. Current modeling efforts incorporate CO2 plus other greenhouse gases that collectively are as important as CO2, plus particulates that range from sulfates (cooling) to black carbon (warming).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Bob

Changed it to CO2--it always seems easier to type carbon--don't have to use the shift key.

The "modeling" has mainly focused upon CO2.

In 1971, the versatile James E. Hansen got his start as a media
"scientist" by associating with the crowd that was fearful that carbon in particulate form was causing global cooling. Prolly harvested some grant money.

More recently Hansen has been solid that particulate carbon is contributing to global warming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
It's absurd that the hysterical crowd still stays with two-dimensional modelling that attempts to tie temperature change to CO2--only.

People around the world do not need a new controlling catechism based upon a "new" version of the Old Testament.
I agree completely. That is why the hysterical crowd's frequent references to the fact that historical rises in global temp precede rises in CO2 as proof against AGW, is too simplistic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
In this discussion there has only been one hysterical crowd and that has been the one demanding to cure the health of the planet by severe political control.

"What I challenge you to do is to see whether there is a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they are going is a criminal act."

This was by Dr. David Suzuki, a biologist, in an attack upon politicians who were not acting quickly enough on "warming" to ease his personal hysteria.

--National Post, Feb 7/08 on a public meeting in Montreal. Suzuki also called indifference to his message an "intergenerational crime".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
In this discussion there has only been one hysterical crowd and that has been the one demanding to cure the health of the planet by severe political control.
Not sure if you are referring to the whole issue of AGW by "in this discussion" or something more specific. However, I would argue that those who believe that this is all simply a plot by evil government forces to strip away all individual rights toward a goal of destroying mankind might be labelled equally hysterical.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.:)
 
1401 - 1420 of 2953 Posts
Top