Slashdot Mirror


Why Morgan Stanley Is Betting That Tesla Will Kill Your Power Company

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes One major investment giant has now released three separate reports arguing that Tesla Motors is going to help kill power companies off altogether. Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley stirred up controversy when it released a report that suggested that the increasing viability of consumer solar, paired with better battery technology—that allows people to generate, and store, their own electricity—could send the decades-old utility industry into a death spiral. Then, the firm released another one. Now, it's tripling down on the idea with yet another report that spells out how Tesla and home solar will "disrupt" utilities.

338 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. Small-scale, real-time. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd believe in small-scale power systems in basements that run off natural gas, or all-in-one nuclear reactors being more likely to disrupt the power industry/grid complex than solar and stored charge. Wind power still has a chance in rural areas were people have larger backyards, though.

    1. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      I'd believe in small-scale power systems in basements that run off natural gas, or all-in-one nuclear reactors being more likely to disrupt the power industry/grid complex than solar and stored charge. Wind power still has a chance in rural areas were people have larger backyards, though.

      Why is this marked troll? If you disagree with an opinion don't just mark it troll, argue the case! I must disagree about the wind power though. I don't think it will work.

    2. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wind is working pretty well here in Wellington, NZ. Solar, less so. Not surprising since we get a lot of wind, and not a whole heap of sun.
      Different places will achieve different balances.

      Good Batteries will mean a lot of people will be able to move of the grid, and it will be cheaper for them. Not everywhere of course, but in a lot of places.

       

    3. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why did the power company build a wind plant at a place where regularly is no wind?
      Bribery? Subsidies?
      Germany produces roughly 30% of its power with wind now ... Denmark about 60% or is it even more? Did not check recently.
      The Titanic sank, nevertheless we all know ships work. Perhaps you should check your attitude regarding wind.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's great that you believe it. Too bad your beliefs and reality are so different.

      A few facts for you, installed solar PV per year is growing at 400% per year for the last 5 years. Costs are declining about 20% per year. You can currently go out right now and find a company in your town that will provide, install and maintain PV panels on your roof for a guaranteed electricity price that is LOWER than what you currently pay and is fixed for 10 years (the loan is a monthly payment that will be cheaper than the power cost it offsets over a year). At the end of the 10 years you own the panels outright and all the power generated until they fail is FREE. PV panels routinely come with a 25 year warranty that guarantees they will provide 80% of their rated power for 25 years. Most PV panels lose about 0.5% of power output per year with no known lifetime, they could in fact last 100 years for all we know.

      Right now, without subsidy Solar PV is cheaper than nuclear power per KW/hr. If the price of panels continues to decline at the same rate it has for the last 5 years by 2020 Solar PV will be cheaper than Coal without subsidy. The absolute only thing holding back Solar PV from storming up and down our grid is the up and down nature of it's generation. Tack reasonably priced storage on and that goes out the window. As solar gains traction manufacturing capacity will ramp up and costs will continue to decline. There are a lot of very rich people betting on solar. Companies like Solar City are routinely turning down hundreds of millions of investor money because they simply can't hire enough people to install that many panels.

    5. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by mrbcs · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Perhaps you should do the math. 5 million dollar windmill @ $10 / mega watt.

      How long to pay that off?

      Generator or gearbox costs over a million dollars.

      The wind here btw is available 90% of the time and they STILL LOSE MONEY.

      The only reason they built them was for the green credits that they have since been screwed out of. The whole industry is bullshit. But if you knew anything about it, you'd also know that.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    6. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      " When it's very hot, no wind, when it's very cold, no wind."

      You must not live in a desert.

      Because it's sure as fuck windy here in the southern part of the Mojave.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Khyber · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're so ignorant of combo solar/wind turbines it's not even funny. Get the fuck out of here. Entire standing structure, plus blades, solar-paint coated. Generates electricity directly via photovoltaics, applied as a replaceable paint. Reduces the need for a larger wind turbine, reducing the need for larger more expensive generator head, also reduces te need for longer feeds of expensive thick copper cable.

      You may run shit but you don't DESIGN shit like I do, so you need to shut the fuck up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      I know enough about it. And the math is rather simple, only multiplication and dividing involved.
      The whole industry is bullshit. But if you knew anything about it, you'd also know that.
      I don't need to know anything about the power or wind power industry in your country.
      So if they can not reach break even or make a profit: you tell me why that is so, or admit you don't know either.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My solar took about 7 years to pay itself off, then I upgraded it and it paid itself off again in 4! I like the extra cash from it and I've not been in the - for years now. I'll end up replacing it all soon with far more efficient panels at a fraction of the original cost. It's far cleaner than coal and the technology behind it is booming.

      Solar is the future whether they like it or not.

    10. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Burma Penis.

    11. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      really? you really believe governments are going to allow any old Joe Sixpack or 'Mohammed' to own their own nuclear reactor?

      I believe it as much as I believe the government will allow the widespread use of solar power to disrupt the business model of the utilities.
      Power companies have lobbyists just like the cablecos. Common sense will not prevail when someone with deep pockets wants to keep them deep.

    12. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's great that you believe your own bullshit. Solar is not cheaper than nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    13. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Maybe eventually - but even if you're talking about $1 worth of panel today we could keep up 20% per year reduction indefinitely that would take log 0.000 000 1 / log (1-20%) = 72.2 years to fall that far, which isn't "soon" unless you're a redwood.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similar here in Western Europe. Wind is very reliable, as we get wind almost every day. But we're too far north to make solar energy an interesting option. Solar should be built in more southern countries such as Spain or southern Italy.

      If anything, all this sustainable energy will demand a stronger, and more integrated grid, which will mean more (not less) business for the grid company. If that all means some old coal power plants go out of business, then so be it. I am sure that the solar/wind industry will compensate the loss of jobs.

    15. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by hattig · · Score: 1

      Which is why Solar is working so well in Germany. It doesn't need to be sunny for solar panels to operate well.

      The problem is that the grid gets loads of solar power during the day, but peak usage hours are later. There are only so many reservoirs they can pump up mountains with the spare power during the day, and offices that need A/C. Of course hopefully everyone will be charging their electric cars during the day so maybe in the long run it will even out.

    16. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Was with you right until you said it was cheaper than x. Solar is the most expensive form of generation over normal fixed lifetimes.

      Home solar however cuts out all the middle men, the bureaucracy, and the transmission. That is the only reason why solar panels on your roof are cheaper than buying power from the nuclear plant down the road.

      That and the sky-rocketing cost of nuclear which has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the cost of regulation.

    17. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're doing wind power wrong over there in america. Here in the UK, wind power is still expensive (although comparable to other power technologies) but we're improving the tech and getting much better at it. I'm not saying it's the only answer, but it's worth doing in the right locations.

      It's also worth doing because wind power really annoys some people (especially Daily Mail readers): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html/

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    18. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, yeah, I don't believe you for even a quarter second.

      1. Nobody who runs a wind farm would refer to wind turbines as "windmills". Seriously, that's like a third-grade level mistake. This is a windmill. This is a wind turbine. Nobody in the industry would ever call a wind turbine a windmill, they'd get laughed at.

      2. The typical bat in the US weighs about 10 grams. Even if we assume that the "trucks" are only pickup trucks that can haul 2 tonnes and your use of the plural only means two - about the lowest possible way we could interpret your "truckloads every year" comment - that would be 400 thousand bats per year. Your mere 700 commercial-scale wind turbines (less than 2% of the US total) would have long ago driven to local extinction any bats in your area.

      The reality, of course, is that estimates for all bat deaths from wind turbines in the US combined range from about 30k per year to 800k per year. All combined.

      3. Your "destroys the health of operators and technicians" line puts you solidly in autism-vaccine cookoo land.

      Just ignoring your grossly inaccurate description of wind power availability, or the concept that a wind farm operator is going to hire someone who despises wind power with a red-hot passion to run their facility.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
    19. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

      Simple: A kWh is (here in belgium) approx. 6,5 eurocent. Let us count on 5 cents to be on the safe side (and for easier calculation)
      Your 10 MW windmill would theoretically produce 10 MWh every hour ==> 10 000 kWh = 50 000 eurocent or 500 euro per hour.

      How long does it take to get to 10 million? Simple: 10 mil/ 500 = 20 000 hour or about 1 000 days which is about 3 years.

      Yes this is a very crude calculation but one that shows that there is nothing wrong with te business case for a 10 milj/10 MWh wind mill.

    20. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > basements that run off natural gas

      PEM fuel cells running when the sun isn't appears to be a simple solution to distributed energy. I have mini-power failures every week and major ones every five years or so, but I have never lost gas pressure in 20 years. Their efficiency is on the same order as turbines from about one generation ago (about 40%). That means the marginal LCoE will be largely dominated by the price of the unit. Pay it or don't, up to you.

      > all-in-one nuclear reactors

      Never going to happen. Nuclear reactor economics scale VERY strongly with size, which is why they're all 600 MWe and larger. Yes, I've seen the various ideas and plans for smaller units, but I haven't actually *seen* one, and neither has anyone else, and every time I try to delve into the economics I find they basically just add a bunch of handwavium about future power prices, and that's where I stop reading. If wishes were fishes...

    21. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > It doesn't need to be sunny for solar panels to operate well.

      Oh yes it does. Efficiency drops off non-linearly with intensity. Blue sky is about 10 to 15% of the illumination of full-on sun, but you make maybe 5% of the power.

    22. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Wind is not a viable option.

      Yes it is, as recent reports clearly demonstrate.

      http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

      > It's not green by any stretch of the imagination

      Sure it is.

      http://tc4.iec.ch/FactSheetPayback.pdf

      > When it's very hot, no wind, when it's very cold, no wind

      Which is 5% of the year, so for the other 95% you have no argument?

      As someone also posting from Canada, I'll simply point out that CF for ontario turbines hovers around 30%, which is *excellent*.

      > It doesn't make any money, it destroys the health of the operators and technicians

      That's a juicy claim. Anything to back either claim up? No?

      > Most rural municipalities also have bylaws that prevent the deployment of turbines

      Which is why most provincial governments have laws to override them.

      > There was one setup here

      One?!

      Great arguments Mr. Operator. Welcome to /., now maybe you can try supporting your arguments.

      So out of curiosity, you left the industry why? My imagination grows febrile.

    23. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > Perhaps you should do the math. 5 million dollar windmill @ $10 / mega watt.

      Wind systems are going in between $1.5 and $2. I have no idea where your numbers come from, they're wrong. Mine come from page 8 of this:

      http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

      But you can find, literally, dozens of papers from governments, installers, grid operators and others that all come in around the same number.

      > The wind here btw is available 90% of the time

      Not it's not.

      > they STILL LOSE MONEY

      No they don't.

      > But if you knew anything about it, you'd also know that.

      I know quite a bit about the industry, both as a technical analyst and hands-on PV guy. I say you're full of crap, and I'd like you to provide any sort of recent numbers that back up any of this BS.

    24. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > I RAN a fucking control center controlling over 700 windmills

      Really? So when I call up TransAlta and ask for a recently retired guy wind ops, they'll remember you, right?

      Not a problem, I still know lots of people in TA's ops.

      > Educate yourself asshole

      Someone needs to put that to a beat, quick!

    25. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > That's great that you believe your own bullshit. Solar is not cheaper than nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

      See, here's the problem... your quoting an article I made major contribs on, and I can state without doubt that the numbers you're quoting are out of date.

      Here's some new ones:

      http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

      Go to page 2. Utility scale PV *is* cheaper than nuclear.

      Really, did you expect otherwise? Nukes have been going up in cost continually for the last 35 years, in spite of herculean efforts on the parts of the designers. Modern plants average $7.5/W, there were closer to $2 in the 1960s (yes, inflation adjusted). PV has done the opposite, it was around $150 in the 1970s, and is about $1.75 now.

    26. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      In fairness, solar is expensive as it is because of the variability of its output. The cheaper solar option, $120/MWh, is a 25% capacity factor. So if it was ran at 100% of capacity, it would come in very cheap. Mind you that's only PV solar so that doesn't cover storage for nighttime usage or other similar factors. The capacity factor itself is more of a general average for sites across the US, which means there's plenty of places that would achieve less than 25% efficiency and there are others that would achieve greater than 25%. The other way to look at it is that in comparison to nuclear, we would need to build up about 4GWh of wind to match 1GWh of nuclear. Thermal solar, which is molten salt, is very expensive at $230/MWh but that gives you an idea of the costs of adding storage for nighttime usage.

      That capacity factor is a pretty big thing though. Higher is better because it means you can drop the plant practically anywhere and be assured that you can generate that capacity throughout the entire lifetime of the plant.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anything that annoys daily mail readers is doing something right.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    28. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I recall hearing about the Condition 1 or whatever it is down in the Antarctic where they cannot go outside because it is so damn windy.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    29. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      I've become skeptical about the cost calculation of Nuclear power. If you include the long-term storage and disposal of the nuclear waste, I'm almost certain nuclear power is more expensive. But good thing the tax payer will pick up that tab.

    30. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      You quote from another brokerage report - who undoubtedly has interest in pushing this out to clients of certain stocks it holds positions in. In addition, the figures for solar are for the SouthWest US only. And with other caveats.

      A neighbor recently had me sit in on a presentation by a local solar installer. Were it not for the various rebates and credits (some of which are lost if you are low income) the "pay back" period would be significantly longer, on the order of 10 years. We were also not clear that he had the correct figures concerning transmission costs from the local electric (they realize you will still get power from them). And I wonder who will be around to make good on those 25 year guarantees?

      Further, solar DOES NOT WORK IN A BLACK OUT because it feeds back into the grid. We were told refrigerator sized batteries were available at substantial cost which could be used in a power outtage. Most people do not realize that solar power does not equate to always available power without significant additional cost and inconvenience.

    31. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Then you should write Harry Reid and tell him to stop blocking Yucca Mtn.

    32. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      We were told refrigerator sized batteries were available at substantial cost which could be used in a power outtage. Most people do not realize that solar power does not equate to always available power without significant additional cost and inconvenience.

      Solving that problem is exactly what this Morgan Stanley / Tesla article is about, so evidently somebody realizes it.

      However, I think wide-scale battery storage is premature. We do have an existing grid infrastructure. Until / unless solar reaches the point of supplying more than 100% of overall demand during the day, we may as well consume it as we produce it, and use stored energy (such as natural gas) at night.

    33. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      The Daily Fail readers will be annoyed with anything that the paper tells them is annoying. If they claim that aliens are lurking in alleyways and eating cats, that is what that demographic will be annoyed with. Their readership is so gullible and stupid that they will believe anything as long as the article has as many pictures as it has words.

      --

      Enigma

    34. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      That's great that you believe your own bullshit as well. Imagine you build two power plants, one nuclear and one that's a solar farm and they both cost $1bn. Which of those plants over its lifespan is going to have a higher cost? How much security is your solar farm going to need? The bigger question is... in 20 or 30 years when the nuclear power plant has reached it's effective lifespan, how much is it going to cost to decommission that plant? Vermont Yankee which Entergy said they'd be closing on 2014, they're talking about it costing more than a billion to decommission it. Even those costs don't include the long term storage costs of all the spent fuel that'll end up who knows where.

      So great, you get your electricity for a couple cents cheaper per kwh now... at what cost later on? Both in environmental and in remediation.

      Though ultimately, I see centralized power companies in the same light as I see newspapers. They will evolve or they will die. As the market economics for consumer power change and the TCO for solar combined with better storage options make going off grid more and more feasible, power companies are going to grasp harder and harder onto their dwindling customers, or come up a better model. Those companies who do, will end up eating those who don't.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    35. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I've been to Shema Island, near the end of the Aleutians, where they have traffic lights over the doors to go outside. Green, under 50 knot winds, safe. Yellow, 50-75 knots, you go out in pairs so the survivor can inform the next of kin that somebody blew off the island. Red, hope you got some food stashed because you're not going to the chow hall for a while.

      The Wind doesn't blow there, it sucks. Yet they had to run the place off huge diesels and fuel barged in during the summer.

    36. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I've ever seen someone brag about doing a poor job before.

      And just when I posted above about wondering where all the comments about "just use stuff that doesn't really exist" were. It exists but not in commercial scale yet.

    37. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Add in the cost of a few security guards for the mothballed plant for 2,000 years.

      Until someone privately insures a nuclear power plant and it's all done on the company dime rather than hidden cost overruns I'll believe the "cheaper than solar" statements.

      I'm still waiting for the "no profit convalescence" years of the plants to be foisted on citizens -- just like the oil company doesn't pay for the military, and foreign aid money goes directly to military contractors in most cases. Cost shifting is the nature of big business.

      That's why I like solar; 90% to Al Gore but no hidden fees!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    38. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I'm not afraid if a tiny difference in "COST" in solar vs. nuclear. What is COST if it's used to subsidize an American company and American workers vs. a company that most of it's money goes to a few, and it imports Russian Uranium?

      It's kind of like "efficiency" -- an efficient economy means that you will get more work done for the same or less money. Unless I'm the hedge fund manager or CEO, it's really not going to be a benefit to me to constantly chase efficiency.

      We want energy efficiency, but we will soon be looking for "make work" projects as the fast food and service industries get automated.

      I'd rather be hiring people to install solar panels and build a grid into the road (to collect and distribute power).

      The "Black Out" is more likely with an ancient grid during peak demand. Put people to work creating a better distributed grid (more jobs = less efficiency!!!) and the peak demand will be when the sun is up -- wow, good think I got solar.

      Blackouts at night? Sure, but stuff happens. We can build solutions or we can keep paying the same rich people for the same problems and never solve new ones and give money to different people.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    39. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      You can currently go out right now and find a company in your town that will provide, install and maintain PV panels on your roof for a guaranteed electricity price that is LOWER than what you currently pay

      And I don't think it's a coincidence that Elon Musk is a big player in that domain as well.

    40. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You quote from another brokerage report - who undoubtedly has interest in pushing this out to clients of certain stocks it holds positions in.

      Attack the source when the numbers don't say what you want them to say. Get real. I've seen numerous reports from all over the country from dozens of different groups that say solar can be installed without subsidy cheaper than current nuclear and within striking distance of even the cheapest natural gas.

      A neighbor recently had me sit in on a presentation by a local solar installer. Were it not for the various rebates and credits (some of which are lost if you are low income) the "pay back" period would be significantly longer, on the order of 10 years.

      A 10 year payback is about a 6% ROI. That's a phenominal rate of return. After 10 years you are guaranteed 15 years of free power. That's the panel warranty. The panels will last longer than that.

      And I wonder who will be around to make good on those 25 year guarantees?

      The same people making them today. Every company that made solar panels in the 1980's is still making solar panels.

      Further, solar DOES NOT WORK IN A BLACK OUT because it feeds back into the grid.

      Horseshit. How the solar is connected to the grid is entirely dependent on local codes, net metering rules and what equipment is installed. There is no requirement that your panels stop generating power, only that you can't feed power back into the grid. With an automatic transfer switch that disconnects you from the utility in the event of power failure you can still feed your own circuits.

      Everything you've said is full of misinformation and outright deceptions. It's so blatant it's almost as if you are a paid sock puppet.

    41. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      So what happens when solar power makes baseload power uneconomical and those plants which stabilize the grid are shut down? In effect, existing baseload power plants are subsidizing solar and wind just by existing.

    42. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Further, solar DOES NOT WORK IN A BLACK OUT because it feeds back into the grid. We were told refrigerator sized batteries were available at substantial cost which could be used in a power outtage. Most people do not realize that solar power does not equate to always available power without significant additional cost and inconvenience.

      That is due to the current design of inverters that will switch off/refuse to start without a stable grid. Lets call those type A. They make up the majority of installations today.

      I believe this could be fixed with inverters that can be switched to isolated operation mode as needed, but there seems to be no market so far.

      Currently solar systems for isolated operation mode exist, but they are typically designed to feed a battery (for instance, 48V) from which an inverter for isolated operation mode generates the 220V (or 120V in the USA). Lets call these Type B. Type B and the related batteries are typically used in houses that are too isolated to be connected to the grid. The whole system is more expensive than type A and therefore not so popular. Usually, it is also NOT designed to feed into a grid..

      A type A/B that can do both would be nice. Out of curiosity, I've been searching the internet for a vendor that supplies these systems. No luck so far. But then again, a type A system plus a generator to bridge a few days of blackout may actually be cheaper...

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    43. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Wind turbines don't operate at those types of speed. They automatically shut down and lock the blades when wind speed increases past a certain threshold.

    44. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You can currently go out right now and find a company in your town that will provide, install and maintain PV panels on your roof for a guaranteed electricity price that is LOWER than what you currently pay and is fixed for 10 years (the loan is a monthly payment that will be cheaper than the power cost it offsets over a year). At the end of the 10 years you own the panels outright and all the power generated until they fail is FREE.

      I love the idea, would love to get solar.. My electric bill is usually between $20-30. Even if I only charged my new electric car at home, solar wouldn't pay for itself for me.

    45. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Attack the source when the numbers don't say what you want them to say. Get real

      Pointing facts from the cited material is not an attack. Get real.

      I've seen numerous reports from all over the country from dozens of different groups that say solar can be installed without subsidy cheaper than current nuclear and within striking distance of even the cheapest natural gas.

      Cite them please.

      A 10 year payback is about a 6% ROI. That's a phenominal rate of return. After 10 years you are guaranteed 15 years of free power

      Complete nonsense. You have no way of stating any IRR because you do not know: cost of my electric, cost of transmission, credits for feeding back to grid, my total electric use, % of electric use provided by solar, cost of inverter replacement (material and labor).

      Every company that made solar panels in the 1980's is still making solar panels.

      Every one? You sure? What about mergers? What happens to warranty then? Will you still have the records? Will the company still have the records? Further, the warranty is only good for the original owner. Most people do not live in the same home for 25 years so there is no resale value to that warranty.

      How the solar is connected to the grid is entirely dependent on local codes, net metering rules and what equipment is installed.

      Yes and? How many localities allow you to still feed the grid during an outage? How many allow an "automatic transfer switch"? And what does installation of such a feature which meets local codes do to your payback period? (other than lengthen it?)

      It's so blatant it's almost as if you are a paid sock puppet.

      Seems to me you are the one doing the commerical for Pets.com

    46. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Vermont Yankee started commerical ops in 1972. So it lasted 42 years. New nuclear designs are.. gasp.. a lot better. Who would have thought that things don't stand still and technology improves for things other than solar? I would also remind that the semiconductor industry is not exactly a clean industry either - lots of nasty chemicals and water use. And they even have a superfund site (Fairchild).

      One could argue that the solar plant would require as much, if not more, security than the nuclear facility. Given that this would be a plant providing substantial power, the goal of the attack would be to wipe the generation capacity out.

      In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h).[15][16] The airplane left only a 2.5-inch-deep (64 mm) gouge in the concrete. Although the block was not constructed like a containment building missile shield, it was not anchored, etc., the results were considered indicative. A subsequent study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that commercial airliners did not pose a danger.[17]

    47. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The cost of electricity (typically cents/kWh, euro/kWh, euro or $/MWh) generated by different sources is a calculation of the cost of generating electricity at the point of connection to a load or electricity grid. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance.

      That doesn't take into account government subsidies, external costs like waste storage, or things like decommissioning once the power plant is too old (plus a ton of other factors). I don't have time to search, but if you find studies that take those factors into account, I'm fairly certain that solar is cheaper than nuclear right now.

      Regardless, it is a hell of a lot easier to start putting solar panels up everywhere than it is to even get one nuclear plant built in the US. (I like nuclear... I'm just pointing out the reality).

  2. Apparently... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently the over-priveledged and intellectually under-equipped "analysts" at Morgan Stanley are trying to give Gartner Group a run for their money... :p

    1. Re:Apparently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently the over-priveledged and intellectually under-equipped "analysts" at Morgan Stanley are trying to give Gartner Group a run for their money... :p

      Nah, they probably just shorted some utility stocks.

    2. Re:Apparently... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Indeed. I might have been inclined to believe it... until Morgan Stanley said it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Apparently... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I think they just purchased some call options in Tesla and they are not in the money.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Apparently... by matbury · · Score: 5, Funny

      Morgan Stanley are a highly reputable financial institution and everything they do is completely legal and above board. It would be simply ridiculous to suggest that they would mislead their investors in order to make a quick buck themselves. Their CEO, James P. Gorman, is a truly dedicated and patriotic Amernican to the core (rumours of his Australianness have been greatly exaggerated). He pays all his taxes and declares all his income to the IRS and has never even been tempted to hide his money in off-shore banks and tax havens, and has never used his personal wealth or his bank's wealth to undermine democracy in state and national elections or through lobbying. He's a man who knows exactly what is going on in his bank and knows that everything is ethical and reputable and in the best interests of his investors and the American people.

    5. Re:Apparently... by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Technically, Morgan Stanley has a vested interest in staying on the good side of Tesla, and the Gartner Group doesn't.

      And yes, I am aware that there is supposedly a firewall between the analysts group and the investment banking services of Morgan Stanley, but such a firewall is only for appearances. If an analyst really knows what's good for him, he'll publish positive recommendations about the clients that keep his employer in business.

  3. Until we learn how to use less ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    We human have become to dependent on gadgets - it is not that using gadgets is bad, but our over-reliance on the use of gadgets on our daily lives mean we are wasting unnecessary power and those wasted power adds up

    Until we can live with using much less than we do now, I do not think the power that we can generate using solar / wind / or whatever green-tech can come up with will give us enough juice to power up all those gadgets that we use

    In other words, Morgan Stanley's report are mere fearmongering --- perhaps they do it with an agenda of their own, perhaps they want to short sell the utility stocks and make a killing that way, I dunno

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by cirby · · Score: 1

      Thirty billion dollars?

      You're off by a couple of orders of magnitude, at least.

      The cost to put solar panels on the roofs of just the houses in California - with "full capacity" standard-issue PV systems (at about $20,000 a pop), on 15,000,000 homes - is about $300 billion. And that doesn't include storage - it's for grid-tied systems.

    2. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Just a quick look at the average energy density of solar energy that reaches the planet's surface, and how that density varies significantly with lattitude, coupled with the fact that you always want to actually generate the power somewhere that's relatively near to where the power actually gets used so you don't waste too much power transmitting it from remote locations, you'd discover that even 100% efficient solar panels wouldn't cut it for a whole lot of people who happen to reside further north or south than about 45 degrees from the equator.

    3. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by praxis · · Score: 1

      Thirty billion dollars?

      You're off by a couple of orders of magnitude, at least.

      The cost to put solar panels on the roofs of just the houses in California - with "full capacity" standard-issue PV systems (at about $20,000 a pop), on 15,000,000 homes - is about $300 billion. And that doesn't include storage - it's for grid-tied systems.

      While geekoid's estimate is likely off, your estimate using current prices is also probably off. If we decided to put more effort into research, development and manufacture on larger scales those numbers would change.

    4. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      We could power all our electricity needs, 24/7 with solar. It would probably take about 10 years and 30 billion dollars.

      Do you happen to feel like Dr. Evil demanding "one-million-dollars"? I'm guessing you meant 30 trillion dollars.

      The largest solar plant Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion and can generate close to 400 megawatts. I don't think 13 or 14 of those is going to cut it.

      $30 billion would probably be enough to build 7 nuclear plants. Assuming the cost would be similar to the cost of the Watts Bar 2 reactor Considering Watts Bar 2 will produce close to 3 times what Ivanpah can, it's going to be a little more than a couple billion.

    5. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Most people are not able to spend $20,000 to put solar/wind power on their house, and most apartment dwellers don't have that choice. Also most people would get a better return on investment by paying down their mortgage than installing solar or wind.

    6. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by jxander · · Score: 2

      Economies of scale would probably drop that significantly.

      But even if the $300 B price tag is accurate, you could cover 1/3 of California using the bailout that Morgan Stanley received.

      --
      This signature is false.
    7. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who said anything a out roof tops? I just price solar for my roof, here in Oregon. 10,000 BEFORE tax breaks and incentives, BTW.

      Anyway, we can build solar thermal farms and hook them into the existing grid.
      The US has vast open mostly sunny areas. We can build several solar farms 25 miles to a side.
      Nothing about that is hard from an engineering perspective.

      Roof top would be bonus. But if you want to talk about panels then:
      Mandate new houses have to have them.
      Cover parking lots and put panels there.
      Put panels along the side of the freeways. These panel would probably get less efficiency do to the cover getting dirty, but that is over come with just the shear volume you could do.

      This is a doable solution.

      .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FYI, transmission losses over 4000 miles is 7%.

      100% solar panels? we could trivially wipe out a day time use.
      We can use gravity systems for storage.

      Fuck, if this was 1930, we would be doing it all ready. Now everyone is a whiny ass afraid of big projects.
      The bests roads, best education system, best space agency, tallest buildings, longest bridges all see to be in the US, but apparently everyone has given up and have no problems watching out civilization built into straw start to blow away. At least billionaires get to keep more billions and suck money out of the system; which is what kills the middle class..

      A massive solar project would pretty much put everyone to work, increase the tax base.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      That's why you make your own solar panels. It does not cost a dollar to have another one, once you have a setup going, if you live like a caveman, isolated from the economy. Even the caveman had tools, like a copper ax, without having any money. That can only work if the government does not charge you a tax, or a fee, per calorie of sunshine collected, on the sunshine that comes from the Sun that's owned by big corporations, and you can only afford to buy a small share in it. Also all wind originally comes from temperature fluctuations due to sunshine, so it's derived from solar power, and the owners of the Sun can also collect a fee per calorie of energy collected via windmills. For now the Sun is a nomadic territory, without anyone claiming ownership over it.

    10. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or about 14% of the cost of the Iraq War.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I guess you have problems to look at a globe?
      The arctic circle is clearly marked at roughly 66 degrees north and south respectively. The problem there is that for a certain period you have polar night ... no sun all day long for a few weeks, actually this is happening far far more north or south respectively, at 79 degrees.

      So if one has a solar plant at 60 degrees north he only has to tilt the panels accordingly. He gets exact the same POWER as the other guy at the equator. Whether he gets more or less energy depends on the season. You know, at the equator the day is always roughly 12h long. At 60 degrees north it varies between 8h and 18h

      So ... depending on what you want to do, e.g. having lots of solar power in high summer during solstice it is perfectly fine to have solar panels far beyond 80 degrees north! Because they have 24h sun a day! Unfortunately you have no sun at all during winter ... if that is what you mean.

      The leading solar power nation is AFAIK Germany. We stretch from roughly 50 degrees north to roughly 55 degrees north.

      Quite nicely north of your proposed 45 degrees ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how solar panels would do on my roof. I live in upstate New York. During the summer, yes, we could generate electricity, but during the winter, they could be covered with snow.

      Worse still, when it snows I need to rake my roof. For those who have never had the "pleasure" of having to do this, heat from the house melts roof snow which runs down to the colder overhang where it melts into ice. When enough ice forms, it dams up any additional water which can then get pushed under the roof shingles and inside the house. (It happened to us once. Dripping water in your bedroom is NOT a nice sound to wake up to!) To prevent this from happening, I use a long pole with a sort of shovel on the end to pull snow off the roof. This way, there is less to melt. The down side is you are standing in the freezing cold (sometimes deep in snow) reaching high above you to pull a ton of snow down off your roof.

      Getting back to solar panels, if I had them on my roof and had to rake my roof, I'd be worried that my roof rake would damage the solar panels.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    13. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I live at ~61N latitude. Solar power here would be of little use. I'd get loads of it all summer long. Tons of summer power to work the lights that I don't need on or the heating that I don't need to use. Then in the winter I would get about nothing in terms of solar power. Not only because of the short days of low angle sun, but because snow and frost buildup on the panels would need to be cleaned off regularly. Winter, by the way, is when I have lights on in my house a lot more and when I need to keep the heat running quite often (the peak power usage season here). And as far as air conditioning using that summer light - no one here has it. You don't need AC when the hottest days of the year are when you crack 80F.

      Unless you have some sort of battery tech that allows me to store up a summers worth of solar energy to be used throughout the winter, I'd rather look into wind power.

    14. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I know :) but our parent claimed the angle of the sun would be unsuited, which jt is not.
      I plan to live on a boat in a few years ... so my power will be mainly solar and a bit wind. I still need power for my fridge and electronic equipment ... and being beyond 61 or even 80 degrees in summer (north) won't be any problem for having enough solar power.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Slick_W1lly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Got an anecdote for you.. :)

      I live not altogether too distant from you. ( weather-wise). I have solar panels on my roof. Had 'em since like.. 2008.

      Snow isn't that big of an issue. Sometimes they get covered, sure. But wierdly they *still* work, even when covered with snow. Not enough to generate anything much worthwhile, but *enough to heat the panels*. I find the snow melts from the underside up, causing a slick undermelt which then causes all the snow to slough off and fall off the panels. Bingo! Panels are working again.

      Even in cloudy weather and winter weather - they still produce a significant amount. I was surprised.

      And I've never had to clean them. In summer any bird crap on them simply 'burns off' and the rain keeps them clean enough that I've *never* had to go up with a brush, and I've certainly never had to go up with a rake.

      Might wanna watch out on the snow days though, in case you get dumped on when the snow falls off - but that's no worse than standing by my front door and getting the ( other, non-solar covered) roof dump its contents onto you.

    16. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      In the summer it's fine, but that wasn't what I was disputing. The poster to whom I responded suggested solar would be sufficient for everything 24/7, which kind of implies it would be suitable year-round...

      Certainly you can offset a lot of conventional energy generation with solar, but the idea that it could actually replace them entirely, at any cost, given the amount of energy that people actually use, and where you'd actually want to have the power being generated for convenience is just a pipe dream.

    17. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My old PC had a 400Watt power supply.
      My old Halogen downlights were 50 Watts each

      My laptop had a 90Watt power supply.
      My new halogen downlights are 35 Watts each

      My phone has a 1 watt charger. (also my tablet.)
      My LED downlights use 7 Watts.

      I'll stick with my gadgets and generate 1.5 KWh on average with the solar panels on the roof thanks.

      --
      A sig is placed here
      To display how futile
      English Haiku is
    18. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most of us lack the tools and materials to build a photovoltaic panel.

      However, Solar thermal (hot water solar) is well within reach of anyone who can solder pipes and use a saw.

    19. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      My first PC had a 200 watt power supply
      The next one was 400 watt
      After that it was 650 watt, which lasted until I need PCIe connectors.
      Now I'm up to 800 watts, with a PC that also doubles as a space heater whenever I play a game.

    20. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      " heat from the house melts roof snow which runs down to the colder overhang where it melts into ice."

      you need to spend some money on improving the insulation in your roof / loft if heat is escaping to melt the snow

      " I'd be worried that my roof rake would damage the solar panels."

      use something softer on the end, you don't need anything like metal to dislodge snow.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    21. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      If you don't mind keeping tanks of h2 and o2 around, the spare power could crack water to run an external combustion engine (like a Whispergen stirling) or feed a fuel cell. I suspect the technology to do that could be refined and made efficient. It's just a water bubbler in a DC circuit, after all. Two bell jars. Simple, if not common.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    22. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why take the least efficient per land mass and one of the most expensive forms of generation and lump it on potentially usable land far enough away to require transmission equipment and include transmission losses?

      Instead you could mount the panels on areas wasted by coloured roofs, co-located to the consumer, and as a bonus it actually keeps the house cool in the summer as well.

      I will have to go for exactly the opposite recommendation you just made. I think large scale solar PV and thermal solar is a horrible idea, but I fully support a panel on every roof of the city.

    23. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Space heater. My Pentium 4 workhorse does that quite efficiently also.

    24. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Ideally, we would re-insulate the house to prevent this, but there is a ton of things that need to be fixed on this house (it was built in the 40's) that re-insulating is the least of our worries. As for the roof rake itself, it can be hard to handle when you are using the long pole (about 15 feet). Especially if your hands are numb. There are times when it drops down on the roof too quickly. Not hard enough to damage the roof, mind you, but I'd be worried about any solar panels on the roof. Of course, they could be placed higher up where my roof rake doesn't touch.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Our problem is that this snow undermelt runs down our roof to our house's overhang where it freezes forming big ice dams. To prevent these from forming, I need to rake the roof. As careful as I am with the roof rake, maneuvering a 15 foot pole with numb fingers in the freezing cold isn't easy and sometimes the rake slams down on our roof. Not hard enough to damage it, but I'd worry if there was a solar panel there.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    26. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Teun · · Score: 1
      No need to store the O2.

      The problem is such conversions end up with about 25 - 35% efficiency.

      Using the Tesla's batteries while stationary is a damn good alternative.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    27. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered using heat tape along the eaves rather than the roof rake? That's how many people deal with ice dams.

      --

      Enigma

    28. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Insulation of the roof would save you money heating and cooling bills, we didn;t realise just how much until we insulated properly. It made the house so much more comfortable

      you can get a block of polystyrene and cover the head of the fork to protect it.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    29. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      But you don't use that for most things do you?

      I have an 800W gaming PC but I'm usually using a 40W laptop or a <10W phone.

      We don't need to make do with less. We just have to make our things waste less, and there's plenty of room for that.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    30. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Might wanna watch out on the snow days though, in case you get dumped on when the snow falls off

      This sounds like an amazing beginning for a Rube Goldberg machine.

    31. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We human have become to dependent on gadgets - it is not that using gadgets is bad, but our over-reliance on the use of gadgets on our daily lives mean we are wasting unnecessary power and those wasted power adds up

      A dishwasher uses less water and power than washing them by hand. A cell phone uses less power than going to visit the person in person to talk to them.

      Many of the gadgets are net gains. It's not the gadgets that are the problem, but the manner in which we use them.

    32. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Around here, they are selling 8kVA systems for about $5k. So by using local pricing, he's closer to right than you. If the government bought all the panels and regulated the installs, a $20k system would cost more like $2k. Here, $5k will buy you a system that will pay back about $1500 a year. Under 4 year pay-back (excepting cost of capital). $20k sounds like a 5-year-ago price.

    33. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      We can use gravity systems for storage.

      Even if there were suitable locations for these which are not already developed, the Greens will stomp them out of existence like they have nuclear power plants.

      Fuck, if this was 1930, we would be doing it all ready. Now everyone is a whiny ass afraid of big projects.
      The bests roads, best education system, best space agency, tallest buildings, longest bridges all see to be in the US, but apparently everyone has given up and have no problems watching out civilization built into straw start to blow away. At least billionaires get to keep more billions and suck money out of the system; which is what kills the middle class..

      The rent seeking politicians and lawyers won.

    34. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant to say $30 trillion dollars... Actually I would put it at about 1 to 2 trillion. But before I did that I would ask what the real expected lifespan of solar is likely to be - and what the environmental costs of making all those panels and then recycling them at end of life will be. Limited lifespans and environmental costs are big problems for industrial wind turbines.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    35. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Snow is a very good insulator. You don't need to be leaking much heat to eventually heat up the thing underneath it to above freezing and then eventually melt the snow. Even a complete vacuum won't do it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. har har. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    Translation: "A few of our VP's are long on Tesla stock, so please buy it. We double pinky swear it'll go up, trust us, we're Morgan Stanley".

  5. Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Home generation through solar is good for everyone.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Good by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we still have the battery problem. And the huge upfront investment.

      No one in cities has the space to dedicate for solar other than a rooftop supplemental.

      Solar panels went down a lot in price and will continue to do so (still quite an expensive component though), but batteries haven't really quite kept up. Unless a new tech comes in as well like some sort of super capacitors (or ultra cheap sand battery tech), we also have the lifetime/limited cycles to consider along with capacity.

      Am I going to be scared just to turn on my induction stove or A/C just because what wear and tear it will cause my system?

    2. Re:Good by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      only recently went "Power positive" (where over their useful life a cell can generate more power than it took to make it in the first place.
      Solar panels are 'power positive' longer than I'm old ... and I'm approaching my first half century.
      They still cost more per kilowatt hour than buying power from the power company Depends on how your grid/infrastructure/marketing works. Right now on europeans energy spot market during peak time solar power sells for a premium. Even without subsidies you have a payback period of your installation on roughly ten years. With an expected lifetime of 30 years and more you are are certainly in the plus side, but that is Europe ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Good by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are looking at the whole life cycle of the solar cells, but so be it.

      Electrical energy is much cheaper here in the states, which makes the ROI much longer than 10 years (it's generally just one side or the other of the useful lifespan). When you consider total cost of ownership, here in the states, solar is usually not cost effective. Some have adopted it in the sunny south west, but with the fall in electric prices due to Natural Gas prices plummeting of late and nobody predicting a rise on the horizon this has all but stopped.

      The *real* test here is when large companies like Wal-Mart or Home Depot start putting arrays on their huge roofs. Until they can see the business case for the investment at the small industrial level, there is no way it will make sense for the homeowner. And until the power generation companies can do this on an industrial scale and make money at it, the large retailers won't be trying it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Good by dpdjvan · · Score: 1

      For the batteries people are working on it like these batteries: http://www.ambri.com/technolog... .

    5. Re:Good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we still have the battery problem.

      Not until we produce more power than peak usage. Until then, we have a generation problem. Lets solve one problem at a time. Start with the only problem we have, generation.

    6. Re:Good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The sad fact here is that Photovoltaic power generation is not yet cost effective and only recently went "Power positive" (where over their useful life a cell can generate more power than it took to make it in the first place.)

      They are cost effective. $5k in panels (closer to $10k installed) will save you $1500 per year in electricity. Better than 7 year pay back. And they've been "power positive" since the 70s. It's just that the solar haters lie about longevity of them to make them look worse.

      Then, when you start load shifting using batteries to store and release power for later, things get even worse.

      Peak power is more expensive to produce. Solar peaks around peak usage. Thus, until we have more solar power than peak usage, we don't need a single battery. Batteries are a red herring. Once we have 100% of our peak generated by solar, we can start to look at batteries. We aren't there yet because of the massive anti-solar lobby that keeps repeating the same lies you do.

    7. Re:Good by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we still have the battery problem

      That's why they think Tesla is likely to be disruptive. Every electric car has a big electrical storage device attached. When your car is parked, you can use it to store excess electricity. If you're not going on a long trip the next day, you can use it to power your house overnight. If you are, then your neighbours probably aren't, so there's still spare storage capacity near you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. ..so.. by _hAZE_ · · Score: 1

    .. how is this a bad thing?

    --

    Don Head
    UNIX/Linux Administrator
    1. Re:..so.. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Because market analysts lie and manipulate the market for their own ends. They do not give two shits if Tesla succeeds as long as they make money.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:..so.. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      That's unavoidable. I like Elon Musk's plans with Tesla's and solar panels. If they lie and manipulate towards the outcome that those plans succeed then let em. Even if they squeeze out 200% ROI.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:..so.. by what2123 · · Score: 1

      You say that like ENRON was a good thing.

  7. Macroeconomic investment theses are always wrong by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally such theses are well founded in reason and logic but it's very difficult to make money from them, in this case by shorting the power companies, because not only does the basic premise need to be correct but so does the secondary and tertiary effects of that premise. In other words, these theses have to get multiple predictions correct, some of which are nearly impossible to do so considering all the permutations of possible outcomes.

  8. Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The energy needed to power vehicles used to come from oil-derivatives (gasoline, diesel fuel). In a way, each car was its own little power plant.

    With more and more cars becoming electric — for better or worse — the need for somebody to turn fuel into electricity will increase. That somebody can only be a power company, really... Solar panels remain joke — you need too many of them and making them is rather harmful to Earth. And disposing is a problem too.

    So, even if they lose some business to the consumers' ability to generate some share of their own electricity, they'll gain from our increasing total demand for electricity.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  9. $107.3 Billion by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...that's what Morgan Stanley got vis-a-vis bailout money when the US housing bubble burst.

    They topped even Citicorp ($99.5 Billion) for the dubious distinction of top dog in the bonus round at the Bailout Games.

    They're crooks of the highest order, and anything they ever utter again will fall upon jaded ears.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:$107.3 Billion by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't like greedy bankers any more than the next guy, but they paid back all their loans, netting the taxpayer over $1.3bn from just their $10bn TARP loan. If you want to draw attention to their crookery, highlighting the timely repaying of loans with interest is not the best way to do it.

    2. Re:$107.3 Billion by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You say $10bn, the grandparent says $107.3bn. Either your talking about different things, or one of you has their numbers very wrong.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Sure, but... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    In order for solar+battery tech to become a viable solution, there needs to be ways to move the electricity generated by the solar panels to batteries you want to use. I.e. co-locate the two (e.g. panels & cars at home; panels & cars at work) or network them together (e.g. panels at home, cars at work.) The first scenario isn't very likely considering the sun generally shines when people are at work and the concentration of vehicles at work will overshadow the electricity generated by panels at an office building. The second scenario begs the question "who maintains the grid." In the US, this is the power companies, who could presumably adjust their business models and charge network access fees instead of production fees.

    1. Re:Sure, but... by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      They effectively already do this in austin. The latest solar rate structure pays 10.5c/kwh but they charge 12.5c/kwh for users using over 1000kwh/mo. So even when I don't use the network I pay 2.5c/kwh for solar power I generate. Unfortunately they do not meter push/pull to/from network, they charge based on total solar generation and total usage. And of course they reserve the right to adjust how much they pay me at will. Last year solar power pay'ed 12.5c so it was a wash.

    2. Re:Sure, but... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Yes, then when you get home you charge it from the batteries that were charging while you were at work.
      Also, there is vast unused solar space.

      How many large parking lots could be covered but aren't? all of those could be generating electricity. It would even have the side benefit in that there will be less impact on micro-climate then asphalt.
      The cover could be 30 feet high, so trucks wouldn't have a problem. And it would be better for shoppers during 'bad' weather.
      The sides of the freeways could have linked solar panels AND act as a carrier for cross counter electricity.

      The sad thing? the engineering isn't that difficult and is doable. Climate change deniers are spending money like mad, lying, and impacting us all.
      I speak without hyperbole when I say, run away green house means the extinction of our civilization, and quite possible the human species.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Sure, but... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      . I.e. co-locate the two (e.g. panels & cars at home; panels & cars at work) or network them together (e.g. panels at home, cars at work.)

      Even assuming co-location is a viable thing (probably not yet) it will still be a very slow roll-out. Global panel manufacturing capacity absolutely could not support anything even close to resembling a fast roll-out, and you can forget about battery manufacturing which would be needed for both the electric vehicles and the homes that charge them. That gigafactory isnt even going to be operational until 2020 or later, and will only support at most the production of 500,000 electric vehicles per year.

      Morgan Stanley has other motives. Unfortunately they are hard to figure out because it almost certainly has nothing to do with the actual operation of their business which is financial services. They dont invest in anything. They get other people to invest in things.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Sure, but... by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      I don't think the gigafactory is really what you need to solve the storage problems for practical off-the-grid solar. Electric vehicles are hauling their batteries with them wherever they go, so they need ones that are as light as possible for the energy capacity, even if that drives up the price. That's why Tesla is concentrating on expensive lithium technology. Off-the-grid storage couldn't care about weight, since the batteries are just sitting there. It mostly needs batteries that are as cheap and reliable as possible, which mostly means old-tech lead-acid.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:Sure, but... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      How the hell is that legal? I can only guess that the power company that owns the network paid off the right politicians in order to allow them to effectively discourage anyone from putting up a solar cell.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Sure, but... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Don't even start on the solar powered roadways thing. Driving on solar panels is just not a thing that is currently possible, no matter how much kickstarter wants to make everyone believe.

      That being said, there is a ton of effectively useless (undriven-upon) land where solar panels could go. Just the strips of land where the electric lines are could do it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Sure, but... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The sides of the freeways could have linked solar panels AND act as a carrier for cross counter electricity.

      Cross country you really really really want HVDC. The losses with 110 V lines over 3000 miles are immense, unless you use 1 m2 wires.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    8. Re:Sure, but... by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      No, cross country you just need HV. DC comes handy when there are too many suppliers with independent problems and synchronization issues between them cause trouble all over the grid. But DC isn't fundamentally necessary just because transmission is cross country.

      And no one does 3000 miles at 110 V. Transmission (long distance) grade voltage starts at 110 kV and above.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    9. Re:Sure, but... by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      " there needs to be ways to move the electricity generated by the solar panels to batteries you want to use"

      Why do you need to move it? You simply have multiple sets of batteries. Using your example if you have a solar install at your home you have a set of batteries at home to collect that energy when you are away at work, when you get home you plug your car into that battery pack and it charges your car. Sure you're going to lose some power in the transfer but we already do that, roughly 6% of generated grid electricity is lost due to transmission. The only real issue at the moment is cost, fossil fuels are still far cheaper to use than existing battery tech. Your average household spends roughly $3k on gasoline, your average solar/battery system right now I think runs into the tens of thousands. Its definitely getting close (at least on the collection/storage end, electric cars are still too expensive), even with the replacement issues of current battery systems as long as you have the up front money and nothing unexpectedly breaks down your probably about the same overall cost as gas if not a little cheaper.

    10. Re:Sure, but... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      And no one does 3000 miles at 110 V. Transmission (long distance) grade voltage starts at 110 kV and above.

      Exactly what I was saying. Geekoid claimed that the sides of freeways could be used for such but if I understand that idea correctly it would mean that every rectifier, with a couple of hundred solar panels, would have to include a 100 kV output.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    11. Re:Sure, but... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      He should be happy that he is getting that much, in my state the power company only pays $0.03/kwh

      --

      Enigma

    12. Re:Sure, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you generate solar and feed it to the grid, without "using" it locally, then buy back all used power from the grid? That sounds insane.

  11. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by mi · · Score: 1

    Well, Tesla is coming, and your days are numbered - traitors.

    What about those, who repent — and denounce their (ex-)fellow RethugliKKKunts to the local people's commissars?

    Are their days just as numbered, or will they be allowed to survive on rations of beets, potatoes, and vodka?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Re:Load of Horse Shit by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    I could see something like this working in a place like phoenix AZ. abundant sunlight, *tons* of single family homes. more sunlight than you could ever want to shake a stick at (it would catch fire from the heat).. did i mention it's really sunny? But I'd think the PV cells would need to be a bit more efficient, and the batteries as well.

    But, it would probably be feasible *now* if not for running AC during the day. Letting the system charge during the workday. (Yes, you'd want to run your AC from about 5pm until 5am)

    But shoehorning sustainability/environmentally friendly living into "oh it would work in a huge metropolitan area in the middle of a fricking desert is completely missing the point of the exercise.

  13. Money, Mouth by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    So an investment company has published reports.

    Have they started pulling out of investments in power generation and transmission, then?

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:Money, Mouth by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      No, but they have likely taken up short positions and are now trying to drive the price down.

    2. Re:Money, Mouth by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      My point is exactly the opposite - are they betting against old school power? This article just says they're *talking* against old school power. I'd be seeing where they put their money before I believe what they say.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Money, Mouth by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I'd be seeing where they put their money before I believe what they say.

      This is a financial services company.. the only place they put their own money is in acquiring other financial services companies.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Money, Mouth by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      Actually, thanks to the Volcker Rule (part of Dodd-Frank), they generally _can't_ put their money where their mouth is, since investment banks have been significantly restricted in their ability to invest for their own accounts (i.e. proprietary trading).

  14. A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello Friend,

    I'm a Republican, and I'd like to help clear up some of your misconceptions about Republicans.

    First of all, killing Americans is not our goal, and never has been. We love America. We love Americans. We love eagles, the most American of all of the birds.

    And when I have to make a tough decision, I ask myself one question: What would Jesus do? The answer to that question is always the right answer.

    When it comes to energy, I know that Jesus did not use solar panels, he did not use hydroelectric dams, and he did not use wind turbines. Jesus used coal, oil and wood as his primary sources of energy. When he needed to cook, he burned wood. When he needed light, he burned oil in a lamp. When he needed to warm his tent, he burned coal. If those energy sources were good enough for Jesus, then they are good enough for me.

    When it comes to health care, I know that Jesus did not go to publically-funded hospitals! When he needed treatment, he acted like a responsible individual and treated himself, even after he had died. When others needed treatment, he acted like a responsible individual and healed them, and even gave them fish. That's why I think that prayer is the only method of medication one needs. If Jesus wants you to heal, he will heal you. If Jesus wants you to be with him, you will join him.

    As you can see, we Republicans aren't the mean people that you have portrayed us as. We are loving people. We love America, and we love Jesus. We put the two of them together to form the ultimate kind of love: Republican Love.

    Yours Truly,
    Richard

    1. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A good example of Poe's law.

    2. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Poe is strong with this one.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Just a pity you posted anonymous. Can you reveal who you are?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Disagree, it's one of the funniest things I've read on Slashdot. The comment about WWJD leads up nicely to the stuff about energy sources and healthcare. It's summarizing, and then he goes into detail about why WWJD is the 'right' starting point.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    5. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Teun · · Score: 1

      Any True Blue Republican that doesn't agree with you is a traitor and Palin will have his junk!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Didn't Jesus have access to power sources unknown to us? The Bible tends to refer to this as "god's" power and it doesn't give any more detail but I am pretty sure what Jesus did would require energy sources beyond what the Bronze age could provide.

  15. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    From your link:
    Solar Energy Comparison with Fossil Fuels
    By comparison, solar power is still the clear winner, according to ecology.com, in terms of being more environmentally friendly. When solar power generation is matched against fossil fuel-based energy production, solar is less damaging to the earth. Even the dangers that are presented by solar power are found as often, or more so, in the by-products of fossil fuels, and there is no escaping the fact that a solar panel can provide as much as 20 years of power generation for a single carbon investment of manufacturing the system, which cannot be duplicated by any other commonly used type of energy production, other than wind system

    Read more : http://www.ehow.com/list_63278...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Any reason not to... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    sign up with a solar lease for my house, flatten my mains bill for 20 years and THEN go buy a volt / leaf / pip / tesla? Or is this subject to the dreaded fine print?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  17. Re: Load of Horse Shit by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    The argument here is not about large solar power plants, it's about small-scale decentralized power generation.

  18. Half of Americans rent by jgotts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Half of Americans rent. People who rent can't do anything to their property. Apartment buildings are stuck with whatever they were built with 40 or 50 or more years ago. They're built using the cheapest technology available at construction time and they're never upgraded. When they get old enough they become the bad part of town or in some cases the outright ghetto until they collapse or are torn down. Some people rent houses, but there is no way your landlord going to put solar panels and a charging system in your rental unit, at least not this decade and not bloody likely the next.

    When I read here on Slashdot about intelligent devices in homes, or this thing people have called garages, or home chargers for vehicles, or fiber to the home, it kind of makes me laugh because these aren't most people. These are the things that less than half of Americans even have a chance of using.

    People who rent aren't necessarily poor. Many renters in New York City, Boston, and San Francisco would be informally considered rich in most of the United States.

    The electric company will continue to serve at least 50% of Americans indefinitely.

    1. Re:Half of Americans rent by praxis · · Score: 1

      People who rent can't do anything to their property. Apartment buildings are stuck with whatever they were built with 40 or 50 or more years ago. They're built using the cheapest technology available at construction time.

      This is not universally true. The problem is apartment buildings owned by national corporations. A building owned by a reasonable land lord often do get upgrades or do make upgrades or modifications at the request of tenants.

    2. Re:Half of Americans rent by Kagato · · Score: 1

      We're seeing more and more solar units down as leases. Many companies specialize in the financing behind it and it includes management and maintenance. What does this mean to renters? If solar were to become economical it's not inconceivable that the renters would buy electricity from the management company and give the landlord a cut.

    3. Re:Half of Americans rent by evilviper · · Score: 1

      People who rent can't do anything to their property.

      Until the government says you can... They can preempt the owner's wishes. One law voted-in saying owners MUST allow renters to install solar panels (or wind), and suddenly a huge portion of the population has the ability to do so.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Half of Americans rent by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As prices come down landlords will install solar, either to make the property more attractive to rent or to reduce their own bills if electricity is included in the rent. It will be like cable/satellite TV, air conditioning and other desirable features.

      It's already happening in the many parts of Europe, where landlords are required to inform potential tenants how efficient the property is so they can judge how much they are likely to be spending on energy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Half of Americans rent by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      When I read here on Slashdot about intelligent devices in homes, or this thing people have called garages, or home chargers for vehicles, or fiber to the home, it kind of makes me laugh because these aren't most people. These are the things that less than half of Americans even have a chance of using.

      Which is why Tesla probably has the right idea, because they don't have a home charger. The home charger is a 240V plug that goes straight into the wall - none of this $2000 charger you have to install thing. (I believe it's really just like a dryer plug or something - I can't recall what the 220/240V 30/50A plugs are).

    6. Re:Half of Americans rent by Teun · · Score: 1
      So that leaves half the population that can.

      And not all landlords are asses re. the value of their property.
      Given enough incentive, renters willing to pay for an environmental friendly home can also be an interesting market.
      I also know of non-profits being set up to build PV and wind generation on other's property, the landlord would be a fool not to rent out his roof space.

      What will be needed is a split in ownership of the infrastructure (the lines) vs. the generation, something that works quite nice in the developed parts of Europe.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    7. Re:Half of Americans rent by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Many places include utilities, so it would be in their interest to lower costs.

      Even for those who don't, lower utility prices are potentially a selling point. If a renter has to chose between two identical apartments, one of which gets its electricity for $.10 and the other for $.23, it's an easy decision.

      That's not going to mean instant conversion of every single apartment; friction is high even when the cost-benefit tradeoff is obvious, and it often isn't. But I don't think that having a distinction between occupant and owner is necessarily a bar to upgrades. It introduces delays, but the costs are being paid by somebody, and they'll seek to minimize them.

      I suspect that a better argument against getting solar electric into apartments is the ratio of roof to occupants. It's not a renter-owner distinction, since not all apartments are big buildings and not all big buildings are rented, but it does mean that there's a chunk of the population whose abodes don't have enough access to the sun to support the economics of solar panels. The solar panels will get put on anyway since that is now rooftop space that's being wasted in a populated area, but the economics of who pays to own/lease that space, and who is willing to make the up-front investment, is less clear.

    8. Re:Half of Americans rent by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      We could make it a building requirement that solar be put on all new construction. We already require all sorts of things in modern building codes. 20 thousand worth of solar panels (minus whatever subsidies the local and federal government would offer) on each new 200,000+ dollar building/house wouldn't be a gigantic deal when stretched over 40-50 years.

      But even if we don't do that, I think market forces will eventually make landlords install solar. There are companies that will install the panels for free, and give you 10/20 year guaranteed electricity prices, lower than what you pay now. After the 10/20 years, you own the panels. What landlord wouldn't take free panels, with the added bonuses of A) owning the panels later, and B) advertising cheaper utility rates to new customers?
      http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works

  19. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Proudrooster · · Score: 2

    Yes it can, as long as battery technology improves. Did you happen to see the article on the new Panasonic/Tesla GigaFactory for batteries? Really the only thing holding us back is batteries. As long as the sun keeps on shining, we have a near infinite amount of FREE energy.

  20. Re:In the words of Grumpy Cat....Good by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    To reinforce your point, just ask the people in Toledo Ohio about a centralized water supply that is crippled due to an algae bloom in lake Erie.

  21. Re:Good, I say by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything that reduces the average home owner's reliance on the grid is good in my book...especially as the infrastructure is so dated and fragile.

    Dated and fragile? Where on earth do you get that impression?

    The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years. Yea, there is some OLD equipment out there, but it is not like running electricity though wires somehow wears them out, so why would you replace it if it's still working just fine? The same for transformers, if they have enough capacity and are not leaking or arcing over someplace, why replace it? It's not like there is anything better, more reliable or more efficient out there.

    The power grid is only fragile at times because we do not keep enough excess capacity in the system for efficiency reasons. But even then, Major blackouts are extremely RARE events and usually are caused by multiple faults and human error. The grid is actually a very tough system, designed to keep operating in the face of lots of unforeseen faults and failures. It routinely takes lighting strikes, component failures, human error and sabotage attempts in stride while it delivers huge amounts of power to almost every location you will find yourself.

    What has changed in power distribution of late is the control systems and the efficiency of the power plants, but you are talking about the "grid" which implies the distribution system. Most of these control systems are for efficiency, monitoring and metering and don't really matter to the operation of the actual distribution system, which in most cases would be just fine without the control system watching.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  22. Re:Good, I say by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I still get a dam good price on my electric cooking from a private electric company, under $20/mo, mostly due to having a local public utility company to compete with, even if I'm not the public utility company's customer. From what I hear that's not the case in places like Carolina's, where monopolies run rampant and charge anything they feel like,. To them Tesla is a blessing, but I don't really give a crap right now. I do know however that almost any kind of energy independence starts through electric, as renewable energies like wind and solar are electric. Only biofuels are not electric, but the photosynthesis efficiency is like 0.25 compared to 15% for a silicon crystal solar panel, so you're talking a 60x difference in energy capturing area, and that's why they are not worried about natural gas prices, or wood pellets, but they are holding the line low on the electric front, at least in my area. Who likes to be shafted on the price by monopolies, throw yo hands in da aya, and say I!

  23. Re:Macroeconomic investment theses are always wron by Rockoon · · Score: 2

    I think its more correct to say that its difficult to make money from them because the biggest portfolios are already on it. Macroeconomics is too simple. Before anyone retorts about banks needing bailouts... banks arent holding companies. Look at what Warren Buffet is doing (ignore what he is saying, although what he says often jives with what he does) ...

    Berkshire Hathaway (Buffets holding company) current has over one billion invested in each of these companies respectively:

    Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, American Express, International Business Machines, Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Exxon Mobil, U.S. Bancorp, DIRECTV, DaVita HealthCare, Moody's, Goldman Sachs, USG, and General Motors

    They are ordered from highest ($23 billion) to lowest ($1 billion)

    The only energy company, Exxon, is primarily oil and doesnt do much in the generation business. Most of his money is riding on banks right now, and most of those that arent banks are putting out healthy dividends.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  24. So let me get this straight.... by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A company making an electric car, which has the potential to roughly double residential electrical demand, is going to put the utilities out of business? Using two of the biggest vaporware technologies around -- practical residential solar and really good batteries? The only thing they left out is nuclear fusion.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight.... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Do you think practical solar is vaporware out of willful ignorance or do you know something that Germany and companies like Solar City don't know?

      http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works

  25. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    I think you're being too kind.

    Adapt or Die.

    Looks like Morgan Stanley and Tesla are adapting.

    Looks like deadenders aren't.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  26. Re:In the words of Grumpy Cat....Good by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    As opposed to individual contaminated ground water wells? Or a million homes' pipes somehow stuck out into the lake? WTF?

    Or are you just bad at coming up with analogies? Because those are the water installations analogous to the situation described.

    --
    That is all.
  27. Re:Load of Horse Shit by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Solar energy can't provide the demands of the average household let alone factories etc who use even more power. Good luck trying to run a washing machine, fridge, dishwasher or drier on solar.

    Strange. My dad and his wife do perfectly fine in their three story house in Vermont running on solar.

    Maybe you're stuck in the 70s?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  28. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by theIsovist · · Score: 1

    You would think, but the big issue with renewable energy is that when the power is flowing, you have to use it. Storage is not increasing at the rate of improvements in tech. But that's changing. With better batteries, electric cars plugged into the grid can act as a large storage system. The batteries can be both filled and drained by the grid, meaning that energy can be stored and pulled from the network of cars that are sitting idle. This (potentially) fixes the storage issue of renewables, and allows for a decentralized grid, which is far more resilient to damage. So, as Morgan Stanley suggests, the age of the centralized power source may soon be over.

  29. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    "The more customers move to solar, the [more the] remaining utility customers' bills will rise, creating even further 'headroom' for Tesla's off-grid approach."

    That's a good example of FUD, because if solar systems ever get cheap enough for large numbers of people to go off the grid, then as the remaining customers' bills rise, it will make more and more sense for them to go off the grid as well. "So it'll just work itself out naturally," to quote one of the Bobs.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "because if solar systems ever get cheap enough for large numbers of people to go off the grid, then as the remaining customers' bills rise,"

      not necessarily, the power companies will have to find ways to create cheaper ways to generate/distribute power to remain competitive - isn't that the way the free market is supposed to work?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt by PPH · · Score: 1

      to remain competitive

      Competitive. You are making a joke, right? The reason they are utilities is that they didn't want to compete back in the day when they were born. And now its in their DNA.

      What will happen is that investors will exit the business as its profitability declines (already happened in my neigborhood). Private power companies will end up as public utilities. And as public entities, they will attain taxing authority to ensure their continued viability. That has already happened where I live with water, sewer and garbage. I can't opt out.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  30. Re:Load of Horse Shit by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Most people in Seattle don't run AC. In fact, most cars here rarely turn on their air conditioning.

    Not everyone lives in the South.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Solar panel production can only have environmental disadvantages in third world countries without environmental regulations.
    I doubt you live in such a country so stop spreading FUD.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  32. Re:Good, I say by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years

    HVDC is the biggest and most fundamental change but it's still rare. However substations are also full of plenty of things granddad would not recognise.

  33. Re:Good, I say by geekoid · · Score: 1

    gosh where indeed. oh right, a power issue in Canada takes out electricity for millions of people not even in the country. It was due to 1(one) fault.
    SCADA infrastructure is woefully out dated.

    "The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years. "
    um, yes it has. sure you see wires and thing its the same, but the tech to make the wires, to step up and down the power has vastly improved. This is why we have so little power loss compared to even 50 years ago.

    "so why would you replace it if it's still working just fine?"
    it's not.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Re:Sounds like a pollution nightmare by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to dis solar power.

  35. Re:Good, I say by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I used to eat a noncooked diet, but I find that cooking rice/potatoes/eggs, plus raw veggies + electric is a cheaper and tastier way to go than the allergy prone bread(wheat,gluten)/mayo(soybeans)/cheese(nonlactose but very expensive protein)/milk(lactose protein)/veggies diet. Out of the above the 20lb bag of rice from the Asia Supermarket nearby by far outdoes everything else on food vs. price, and ease of storage. Which must be why half the world's population lives on rice, not bread. , Only ease of consumption is more difficult for rice than the other, but not worse than wheat that has to be turned into bread, or potatoes that also have to be cooked forever - both my hotplate and microwave must be near 1500-2000W, and potatoes take 15-20 minutes to bake in the microwave, whether you bake 1 or 6 at the same time, while I can fry rice in less time on the hotplate, and drain the oil save it for next time, as that's the really expensive part. Then dump water on top of it, bring it back to a boil, once it bubbles, pull the plug and walk away. 15 minutes later it swelled up and ready. As a vegetarian, I really can't live without eggs, for protein. Rice, potatoes and bread just does not have enough protein for omnivores like humans, cheese does, but that's even more expensive than meat, compared to eggs being really cheap. I'm a vegetarian mostly for cost reasons, if they sold meat at 5 cents a lb and eggs over $1/dozen, I'd definitely be eating meat, as long as it's kosherly killed, and learn to deal with any repulsion I'd have against it, in the name of good economy.

  36. Re:Load of Horse Shit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    You could easily plug your washer into the car for the necessary short burst of juice, and then let the car charge back up from the sun.

    But how do I get my car down my stairs? The stairwell to the basement is too small...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  37. Re:Load of Horse Shit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Batteries are already very efficient.
    Perhaps you mean their limited lifetime/charging cycles, or limited capacity in relation to size and weight?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  38. Heads in the Sand by kf6auf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The utilities are sticking their heads in the sand and trying to pretend that technology won't move forward. In some places they are trying to add an interconnect fee for those with solar panels that's as large as my electricity bill. They also are requiring solar panel inverters to stop working entirely when the grid goes down, instead of just providing power for the house and still leaving the grid upstream unenergized. All this, and the price of electricity keeps going up. And they expect people won't move forward with batteries as technology improves?

    Disconnecting from the grid entirely is large investment: people need a large solar array, several days worth of batteries, and probably smart appliances (mainly air conditioners and refrigerators). Or the utilities can make money helping to create a lower-investment intermediate option: staying connected to the grid with a smaller solar array and half a day worth of batteries which both help the utility with load balancing and can keep the house powered when the grid goes down. If they do this right, they will be able to remotely control when the system is storing energy or sending it to the grid, which probably means it's in their best interest if they write the software and maybe even make and sell (and install?) the hardware.

    Plus, they can provide monitoring services and, if they want to really diversify, insurance services or financing options. Otherwise, as more people abandon the grid, it will become more expensive per person to maintain it, creating a downward spiral of grid usage.

    1. Re:Heads in the Sand by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > The utilities are sticking their heads in the sand and trying to pretend that technology won't move forward. In some places they are trying to add an interconnect fee for those with solar panels that's as large as my electricity bill. They also are requiring solar panel inverters to stop working entirely when the grid goes down, instead of just providing power for the house and still leaving the grid upstream unenergized. All this, and the price of electricity keeps going up. And they expect people won't move forward with batteries as technology improves?

      True. I'm experimenting with a different approach. There's one circuit (pilot project so far) that's solar / marine batteries only, and the rest of the house is connected to the grid. The two feeds don't interact in any way. If the grid goes down, most of the house power goes down, but a few sockets, including the one the freezer is plugged into and the one the fridge is plugged into, continue to operate. (Be careful to pick a properly spec'd sine wave inverter for this application.)

      What I'd like to do eventually is have parallel wiring in the house, one string coming from the inverter, and one coming straight from the batteries, (through a fuse box of course) so that things like lights and electronic devices that don't mind working on 12 volts can use the native voltage, and things that need 110 will have 110. (Did you know that you could get CFLs that run on 12 volts?)

      My concern at this point is that I don't really have a feel for how many charges the batteries will take, or whether the battery creation/disposal lifecycle is any better than a coal fired electricity plant, for the environment.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  39. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by Ken_g6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solar panels are no joke. They're already out-competing all other forms of electricity on price in some places in the USA.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  40. Industrial Production? by jamesl · · Score: 1

    And all those great new Tesla batteries will cut the cost of producing steel in electric arc and induction furnaces. And then there's converting bauxite into aluminum.

    Cars will be (almost) free. Bridges will be cheap. There will be an airplane in every garage. I can't wait.

  41. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    By comparison, solar power is still the clear winner, according to ecology.com

    That sites like "ecology.com" declare solar to be a winner is not surprising. That they even ask a question, however, is a sign, that things aren't as obvious and clear-cut, as some would like the rest of us to believe.

    Just twenty years ago we were lead to believe, growing more corn for conversion to ethanol would save the Earth and otherwise make the world a better place. That turned out to be a lie, but you wouldn't find a mention of it on ecology.com. Or, maybe, you would nowadays, but it is hardly trumpeted the way "progressive" politicians were praised for pushing ethanol and the "kkkonservative" ones — lambasted for opposing it.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  42. $107.3 Billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did they repay it with interest or not? Public good.

  43. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Australia ATM, a dodgy deal with the monopoly owners of the grid's "poles and wires" has enabled and encouraged a massive over investment. Causing prices to rise for just about everyone. At the same time, in response to recent economic woes, the government was offering large subsidies to residential investment in solar panels.

    As I travel around our suburbs now, solar is everywhere. And there is actually talk about the grid going into a death spiral. Their customers are reacting to rising prices by installing more solar arrays, even though the government subsidies have ended. There's a good chance that some of the over investment in the grid will never be needed at all.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  44. J. P. Morgan by midifarm · · Score: 1

    Trying to still keep Nikola Tesla down even from the grave!

  45. Re:Macroeconomic investment theses are always wron by gutnor · · Score: 2

    More importantly - timing matters. Even if they are 100% correct, power companies will continue to make money for a decade. As for the "market disruptor", if you are just a few year wrong, you would have put your money in MySpace rather than Facebook. If you sold your investment in real estate in 2006 you hit gold, if you did it in 2004 or 2008, you lost.

  46. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by mi · · Score: 1

    But that's changing. With better batteries, electric cars plugged into the grid can act as a large storage system.

    We are a long way from when a portable battery can compete with a tank full of diesel fuel in power density. It is vaporware at best...

    The batteries can be both filled and drained by the grid, meaning that energy can be stored and pulled from the network of cars that are sitting idle

    Sure. And the liquid fuel can be transfered from one gas-tank to another — and with less of it lost due to spillage.

    So, as Morgan Stanley suggests, the age of the centralized power source may soon be over.

    I wish it were true, but I doubt it — and suspect, MS is either engaging in wishful thinking or simply trolling the rest of us, while keeping their stocks of power-producers (and buying more).

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  47. Solar city model by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One of the main stumbling blocks for residential solar is that a typical home owner is ill equipped to make the decision, (investment needed, financing, amortization schedules, expected future price of grid electricity, sizing etc) and find the contractor to execute it. Also resale, value of home etc etc come in. The solar city model is where they own the panels, they install it, you only pay metered electricity, you get to keep the grid for back up. In the end they pack it and take it away when you want to sell the home if the buyer is not interested in it. Suddenly the home owner can try solar for very low risk.

    Even without subsidies, this model has reasonable pay back period in places like Arizona or Hawaii. Of course storage technology is very bad at residential levels. Solar thermal has better storage using molten salt. But not viable at homes. But home storage does not have the size, weight and crashworthiness requirements of auto batteries. The flywheel storage mechanical batteries might become viable. But almost all the proposed storage have issues.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Solar city model by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Supercaps ought to fare better than batteries - as far as I understand it, the price per lifetime energy storage should be lower. And bulkiness is of little issue in stationary applications. I've even seen a proposal to develop caps with very long lifetimes and then use them as structural elements in the buildings (which are bulky anyway), although that sounds really adventurous. And last but not least, you don't need any exotic materials such as lithium, cobalt etc. Only aluminum, carbon, some organic chemicals.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Solar city model by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      NiMH and lithium cells will be the most popular choice because you can use used cells. Nothing is cheaper and lower environmental impact that using existing cells that would otherwise have been discarded or recycled. You will be able to take a battery pack directly from say a car and plug it in, with no further work needed. For things like laptop and phone batteries some work is required to separate cells and test them, but not as much as with full recycling.

      Low temperature sodium batteries look like they will become popular too. Japan is already using them to smooth wind farms (50MWh packs). Once manufacturing ramps up they are going to be available for home use too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  48. shrug by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    shrug. I kinda doubt it, but if so, maybe utilities need to be disrupted.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  49. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by mi · · Score: 1

    Solar panel production can only have environmental disadvantages in third world countries without environmental regulations.

    Perhaps. Would not that explain, why China's share of the panels produced in the world has been steadily climbing and reached 45% in 2010? Making the devices in countries with effective regulations is cost-prohibitive.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  50. Look at it this way instead by dbIII · · Score: 2

    If that company provides good enough and cheap enough batteries for a lot of people to use nothing but rooftop solar all day and night - yes it's certainly going to deliver a shock to the worst run power companies that only survive due to a local monopoly. There's still plenty of little Enrons in the mix.
    It's got to the point where price gouging in some places is enough to drive people to spend the large capital cost for solar panels plus storage and go mostly or completely offgrid, which then makes the utilities scream because they are being exposed to the cold winds of capitalism and making less monopoly profit! Poor babies!

    1. Re:Look at it this way instead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Baseline power is always cheaper.

      Not to the consumer in some places. I'm very much aware that it's cheaper to generate (I was in the power industry for a few years before moving to the resources sector), but by the time the consumer gets the greatly inflated bill it can make more financial sense to put solar panels on their roof. If cheap and effective batteries are available it can then make more financial sense to go offgrid entirely.
      It used to be that such a choice only made sense in areas where it would cost a lot to get connected to the grid due to distance etc. Many utilities have been exploiting their monopoly status so much that they are have priced electricity high enough that consumers are willing to wear the large capital cost of panels, since it's cheaper than the alternative after only a few years.

  51. Not for a while by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    Around here we have lots of windfarms and more going up every day, at least in rural parts of the state. I've never thought of my local electricity grid as all that bad actually, rarely goes down except in large ice storms, and it's pretty cheap. ($0.08/KWh).

    Though when Solar or some combination of it and propane/natural gas can more cheaply run an A/C unit in a midwest summer--that will be the end of big utilities.

  52. Re:Good, I say by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Little known fact electricity running through wires degrades the wires and the protective jacket on them.

    Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble. not just the jacket coatings but the copper itself. This is due to heat. Heat comes from resistance.

    As you pass electricity through the wires they heat up and cool off. then you have summer heat, and wind storms, and eventually you get cables that snap. but before they snap they are discharging electricity into the air and anything around them.

    Copper lasts longer than Aluminum. But in time both wear out. The bigger the cable and the lower the load the longer it lasts.

    So yes the system is dated and fragile. Like bridges wires only get upgraded and replaced after they cause problems or fall down.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  53. Re:Load of Horse Shit by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    If you had enough battery capacity - which is what a Tesla car is supposed to be - you could run a washing machine off solar, as long as you charge the batteries for 10 hrs, and run the washing machine for 20 minutes, depending on your battery and solar power capacity of course. Your calculator solar cell is never gonna run your washing machine, even if you wait 2 years to gather the charge. A rooftop solar might directly run it, or maybe a 20 minute run with continuous charging off of a 40 minute paused charging time. By the way a big problem with new batteries compared to lead acid is the discharge rate, the peak amps, though if you have a large enough battery, such as for a whole house, or a car, you can go completely lead free, and even the Edison nickel-iron battery might work, which loses charge very fast, within a month, but it's very robust and environmentally friendly, so hillbillies can't really mess things up with it, compared to lead acid, nickel-cadmium, or even the super expensive lithium-ion, which by the way is kind of hard to fix and rebuild. With lead, cadmium and nickel-iron you can almost DIY your batteries very simply, and rebuild them when necessary. Especially lead is simple, because you can melt it down very easily, and mold a new shape, new electrode, in a gypsum mold, compared to nickel iron, where iron requires a blacksmith forge. There was this book at my college library, that really struck me, titled "Lead, the Precious Metal." And I was like how can they say that, it's toxic, Beethoven died from it, but when it comes to batteries and possibility of rebuilding them in your own home after they are aged and don't hold a charge well, nothing really beats lead. Plus it can be used as bullets, and x-ray shielding(though plain earth is better), and fishing sinker, low melting glass additive (CRT TV screen glass), a lot of chemical equipments in the 1800's specifiy lead lined vessels. Just don't get it in you, and if you do, make sure the dose is ultra small, on the level of a medicine, plus you consume chelating therapy agents, like drink Mountain Dew or anything that has EDTA in it, or sulfur rich compounds like garlic, onions and egg yolks, By the way acetate of lead is called sugar of lead, it used to be used to adulterate the wine of Beethoven, who was a big wine lover and got really fucked up from it, to make it taste sweeter, and the acetic smell or taste was not that strange in a wine environment. But when someone is trying to poison you with lead, there are few soluble lead compounds, such as acetate, nitrate and silicofluoride, everything else is insoluble, and the most likely poison would be acetate of lead that's sweet like sugar. Also, minium, Pb3O4, is a bright red pigment, and sometimes red dust spices, like paprika, used to be adulterated with it. If you eat paprika, try not to have it in a dust form, but crumbled pieces. I'm really watching out for both lead (Pb) and mercury(Hg) toxicity, because both can create mental illness, and at the autopsy they can frame you into a source, or how it got into your body, so if you handle any Hg or Pb, even if you're careful you're at a danger of mental illness poisoning, by providing an alibi to how it got into you. Also don't get it into the environment, and keep things like carpenter ants away from it, because they really love drilling holes into lead, not knowing they are getting poisoned by it.

  54. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're already out-competing all other forms of electricity on price

    Maybe — with government subsidies, tax-credits, and cheap solar panels made in China...

    in some places in the USA.

    "In some places" you hardly need a car too...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  55. Industry? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    I can see running households on solar, but what about things like large-scale industry, aluminum refining, stuff like that?

    1. Re:Industry? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      large scale industry has large scale buildings so if the used solar on all of them, they would at least reduce their usage by a large margin. sometimes a reduction is good enough to save pots of money providing they aren't on those stupid guaranteed power usage contracts like Microsoft signed a while back, they had to power up loads of extra equipment to make sure they used the contracted amount so they didn;t get "fined" for using less than agreed.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  56. Re:Load of Horse Shit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    It is not batteries that are holding back anything.
    The idea that batteries will change much regarding solar energy is completely wrong or at least absurdly overrated.
    When you can produce all your day peak energy needs with solar, then you can start thinking about batteries.

    The daily peak is around 2PM / 14:00 depending on your country and your consumption habits (do you use AC heavily e.g.). There is a plateau around the peek from roughly 9:00 AM to roughly 8:00 PM (20:00). If you produce solar energy fitting that curve, then there is nothing left you can store. Unfortunately you obviously have no energy at night and not enough during dawn and dusk.

    To be able to use stored solar energy at night and during dusk and dawn, you need to have a significant overproduction, nearly 200% during daytime (only 1/3rd of the day you are producing solar power, 1/3rd at night you only use and the other third it is ramped up or down during dusk/dawn, 200% overproduction means 300% of peak usage!)

    How much solar power does you country produce over a year? 1% of its total power consumption? Really? So you have to increase the production by a factor of 100 to even meet your peak consumption! And after that, you can start thinking about batteries or other storage.

    Oh, you meant as a house owner? Sure, you already can install a 20kW plant when you only use 10kW peak, and store perhaps something like 10kWh (exaggerated) of energy in your basement. And surprisingly: batteries are by far good enough for doing this. Prices are a problem ... perhaps even space and maintenance. Such prices would go down if solar would be more widely adopted. However I rather have no batteries and 'buy' wind power at night, or solar power from a solar thermal plant :)

    So all please stop considering storage being the problem.

    Storage is interesting for different reasons. E.g. wind plants which are placed perfectly operate most of the year around their 'optimum' or rated power. Unlike solar plants that produce power linear correlated to sun intensity (half the sun, half the power, double the sun, double the power), wind plants scale with the cube of wind speed. Double the wind speed, eight times the power. That means the difference between average and peak is HUGE! And that peak usually is when you don't need the power! Around dawn/dusk or at night. Storing that excess power is interesting ... storing solar power is only interesting if you have laws/legislation ... fees versus grid operators etc. that put you into a disadvantage, if you don't store the excess power (and plan to have excess power in the first place)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  57. Re:Good, I say by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can personally attest to this. Our house was built in the 1940's. When we were fixing it up, we asked our contractor's electrician how much it would cost to replace the kitchen light fixture on the side. He looked quickly and, figuring it would only take ten minutes, said $25 which we paid him up front. When he took off the old light, however, he found that the wires kept crumbling in his hands. He kept needing to pull new wiring until he could hook it up. The job wound up taking him quite a few hours. That's the best hourly electrician rate we're ever likely to get.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  58. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    Tesla once tried to give free power to the masses. ... He quickly found himself destitute and without many friends.

  59. Aren't most large scale utilities... by cl3v3r · · Score: 1

    ...heavily regulated/subsidized/driven by municipalities?

    LA DWP, for example, essentially has the backstop of ratepayers/taxpayers for whatever financial missteps or misfortunes they might suffer.

    Hard to go out of business when you're not driven by market forces.

  60. Re: Good, I say by SneakyMishkin · · Score: 1

    If we are talking about the blackout in 2003, it started in Ohio(USA) not in Ontario(Canada).

  61. Re:Good, I say by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    HVDC is one. Superconducting cable is another. Both can be pretty expensive so the number of installations so far is quite limited. There are also people working on so called ballistic conductors. If those work out they should be a lot cheaper and easier to maintain than the superconducting cables which require liquid nitrogen cooling.

  62. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Actually China has regulations regarding solar panel production :) How good they are enforced is another topic ... point is: correctly produced there is no toxic waste. Hint: they get produced the same way your microprocessors, ram, and flash memory is.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  63. Re:Good, I say by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Yes. I was merely giving a couple of more mainstream examples to show that the "100 years no change" thing is utter bullshit - which it is even if you consider the transmission lines alone.

  64. Scaling usage by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's quite believable that technology will develop toward helping people reduce their energy costs. What's not quite so believable is that it will be enough to reduce demand.

    If energy was cheap enough, maybe you would use your excess electricity to get free water instead, extracting it and/or producing it from air and hydrocarbons, or otherwise recycle your waste. Maybe you will have some of the latest computer modules chugging away simulating your entire antatomy to anticipate future medical problems. If I had free electricity right now I would be using as much of it as possible to mine bitcoins. Who would have anticipated that 20 years ago?

    I don't see the end to domestic energy demand until we see the end of people wanting wealth, because technology is increasingly a way of translating energy into things of value.

    1. Re:Scaling usage by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      If energy was cheap enough, maybe you would use your excess electricity to get free water instead

      I prefer the opposite approach -- I've placed a paddle-wheel under my shower head, and I'm using the hydroelectricity it generates to power my house.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Scaling usage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You would be better off selling that excess energy to the grid, so that businesses who don't have enough capacity for over-production themselves can make use of it.

      Technology is also getting low power every year. A lot of that is driven by battery powered devices, but even if energy was free I doubt people would stop trying to improve efficiency of mains powered devices. Better efficiency means you have more energy for other things, and realistically there is only so much a person can consume. Bitcoin is already a waste of time and money thanks to industrial scale miners, and I doubt running a complex simulation on your own hardware will ever be cheaper than simply farming out to an Amazon instance etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  65. You insensitive clod! by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My roof is the floor of the people upstairs. I can't install solar!

    This is increasingly the situation many people find themselves in, having bought into the urban, high density, live close to everything and take your bicycle to work lifestyle. We will forever be the slaves of the big power utility.

    Where's that hipster urban planner with the pony-tail that sold me this line of crap? I want to strangle him.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:You insensitive clod! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      My roof is the floor of the people upstairs. I can't install solar!

      Ultimately... there has to be some top floor, where their "roof" really is a roof, and they should be able to install solar. And then "share" a portion of it they decide with you downstairs, in exchange for an appropriate fee of course, which you will negotiate with them from a position of weakness (being that you can't get the solar from anyone but them or a neighbooring roof-level user) .

    2. Re:You insensitive clod! by istartedi · · Score: 1

      You can't grow much food either. If you're lucky, you can grow a few tomatoes in pots on the balcony. You knew that going in. The trade-off is that you can walk to a farmer's market.

      I have no sympathy, assuming that you're actually serious about looking at things this way. Aside from that, power companies aren't the only thing that we have to pay into. If you moved back to suburbia, you're buying more gasoline, you're having to figure out what to do with grass, trees, and garden pests.

      Trade-offs. Life is full of them.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:You insensitive clod! by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      My roof is the floor of the people upstairs. I can't install solar!

      True, but you could buy some shares in your community solar garden. It's not like the photons have to be gathered from your own roof; the solar panels only need to be sufficiently nearby that transporting the electrons to you is economical.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:You insensitive clod! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      can you not install them on the east/west walls instead, creating a awning effect over the windows? They don;t have to be on the roof.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:You insensitive clod! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      My roof is the floor of the people upstairs. I can't install solar!

      You can't do it on your own, (except for a few in the windows or on the balcony) but you certainly could get together with other renters and the landlord, and get a shared PV system installed on the building's roof.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:You insensitive clod! by PPH · · Score: 1

      It all comes down to square feet of roof space per occupant in a structure. Solar is more efficient if you live in a one story rambler style house.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:You insensitive clod! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but high density and high power demands could alternatively make sun-tracking and/or higher efficiency concentrated-sunlight PV systems practical.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:You insensitive clod! by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Your landlord could still contract with Solar City to provide all his tenants cheaper electricity, with zero cost to him. http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works. Maybe you could bring it up with him/her?

  66. Re:Good, I say by Algae_94 · · Score: 5, Informative

    My house has wires from '52, not quite as old, but close enough. The sheathing around the wires is extremely brittle and will crack and fall apart if moved. If left in place in the wall it is fine. What absolutely does not crack and crumble is the copper wire itself. The plastics and polymers used as sheathing around wires has improved dramatically over the years and would most likely last a lot longer now. The conductors themselves are about the same and last a very very long time.

  67. Economies of scale by cirby · · Score: 1

    Economies of scale have mostly kicked in already.

    As of right now, the panels are no longer the biggest part of the cost of a full-scale installation - it's the "putting it on your roof correctly so it doesn't fall off or catch fire" part that costs.

    Prices will drop - some - but for anything like the near future, they're going to stay in the $15,000-$20,000 range - without storage.

    You can get lower quotes, but for some reason, those quotes always leave things out... the folks who brag about "I got it for half that" haven't dealt with contractors before, for the most part.

    1. Re:Economies of scale by praxis · · Score: 1

      Economies of scale have mostly kicked in already.

      As of right now, the panels are no longer the biggest part of the cost of a full-scale installation - it's the "putting it on your roof correctly so it doesn't fall off or catch fire" part that costs.

      Prices will drop - some - but for anything like the near future, they're going to stay in the $15,000-$20,000 range - without storage.

      You can get lower quotes, but for some reason, those quotes always leave things out... the folks who brag about "I got it for half that" haven't dealt with contractors before, for the most part.

      I wasn't speaking about economies of scale in the traditional manufacturing sense. As we as a society do something over and over we get better and cheaper at it. There will be more contractors and some of them might come up with better methods. It might not even happen, all I am saying is that don't assume that today's costs will be the same costs if we decide as a society to go whole hog and do orders of magnitude more panel deployments.

  68. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fortunately, it works well on a local scale.

  69. Re:Good, I say by davester666 · · Score: 1

    I know. We can fix this by connecting the grid to the internet.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  70. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    The fact that some people in some places could go off the grid doesn't make this horse crap Morgan Stanley is spewing any more true. If Morgan Stanley is saying it publicly it is to manipulate share prices and that's about it. Even if this does come to be true, there will surely be another couple up and down business cycles beforehand so there's no need to even act immediately on this information.

  71. Non-residential users by rgmoore · · Score: 1

    A lot of power usage isn't residential, either. Some light commercial users may be able to get away with off-the-grid solar solutions, but I don't think it's going to be practical for industry, which is a huge user of electricity.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    1. Re:Non-residential users by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      " but I don't think it's going to be practical for industry, which is a huge user of electricity."

      the more they could produce themselves the more money they'd save. some industries have buildings with huge roofs and as a lot of the work happens during the day, the closer they get to free power during the day the better for them.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  72. Re:Macroeconomic investment theses are always wron by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    Buffet is a well known value investor. He doesn't buy things for future growth, but because the current prices are too good to pass up. Most of those banks were screaming deals over the past 5 years. As their share prices come back up from the banking crisis and valuations aren't as good, I expect he will unwind some of those positions.

  73. Re: Good, I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First you are confusing distribution with transmission. The distribution systems are in a sorry state, mostly because they are being squeezed to lower costs, so maintenance is cut.

    Second, it would take about 6 coincident trippings of nuclear unit size MW to black out the eastern interconnection. Fortunately, the sorry ass FirstEnergy Ohio that caused the 2003 blackout got their balancing area functions taken away, so we are safe for a while.

  74. Re:Load of Horse Shit by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Haven't you heard that the next Tesla model will fold and only weigh 40 lbs, to solve problems exactly like this.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  75. Re:Good, I say by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ballistic conductors are not super-conducting in the usual sense. They only occur in tiny 1-dimensional conductors, and are a result of the free-path length of electrons in the material being longer then the distance to the materials edges. They also only work if the electrons entering them have allowed energy levels for the free path which any electrical current does not - hence they present resistance at the ingress points.

    They're an interesting phenomenon, but definitely not a large scale energy distribution solution.

  76. Long time running. by westlake · · Score: 1

    could send the decades-old utility industry into a death spiral

    Is it too much to ask to get the time line right?

    The first hydro-electric plant generating AC power for regional distribution went into service at Niagara Falls in 1895.

    Edison had much smaller scale DC plants online in New York and London in 1882. On-site generation is a decade older still.

    There is always something of a disconnect between where people want to live - where the jobs are - and where alterative power sources are most easily and economically exploited on a commercial scale.

    If you are looking for wind, Tornado Alley is a good place to start, and for sun the Hades hot and dry desert southwest.

  77. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Calibax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Solar energy provides all the electricity for my house, and has done so since 2003. Not a single electricity bill since that time.

    I installed 48 panels on my roof and I run the air conditioning, washing machine, electric dryer, dishwasher, and everything else electric from the roof panels. We do have gas heating and a gas range. I have a modern thermostat and I set the low point to 72 degrees and the high point to 76 degrees and let the system figure out how to keep the house in that range. I leave it set that way all through the year.

    In the the year before installing the panels I spent $2800 on electricity, and prices have gone up considerably since then. The costs of the installation (after California state subsidy and tax incentives) was $31,000 so I've fully recovered the installations costs. I expect the panels to continue producing all the electricity I need for the next 20 to 30 years.

  78. Re:Good, I say by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    Anything that reduces the average home owner's reliance on the grid is good in my book...especially as the infrastructure is so dated and fragile.

    Dated and fragile? Where on earth do you get that impression?... The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years...

    You said it yourself - the technology hasn't changed in 100 years. It was never designed with terrorism and climate change in mind. To continue relying on a grid that is vulnerable to cascade failures and can be taken down by an ice storm, (or a few well-placed bombs), thereby rendering a large part of the continent powerless, is silly and irresponsible.

    Sure, continuous improvements are being made to the grid, and tech advances are making it more reliable and less vulnerable. But the complexity of the newer control systems constitue their own Achilles heel - see 'requisite variety' to understand why. The grid will never be as resilient and fault tolerant as widespread local power generating capacity will be.

    Add in the fact that distributing solar capacity is more efficient than centralizing it, then consider the carbon footprint of coal-fired plants, and solar plus batteries starts to look damned good.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  79. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Power companies in cali rape us...
    We had to use tax dollars to upgrade their plants that are spos to be budgeted already. and they still pull the we had put money in so expect power bill increases lol

  80. Re:Here is WHY that won't happen anytime soon... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    The only part of your post I agreed with was the bit about free energy crap on YouTube.

    There is no great conspiracy; there never has been. If small fusion power was feasible, the company that put it on the market would clean up overnight, have an instant monopoly and would put everything else out of business instantly. This hasn't happened, ergo, the technology doesn't exist. Same for super-energy-efficient cars and so on.

    Super capacitors can't replace batteries, they just don't have anywhere near the energy density of even current battery technology, which in itself is very poor compared with chemical fuel. What they do have is the ability to take charge quickly, so they could be useful for harvesting waste power in an electric car, e.g. regenerative braking. To hold enough charge to power the car continually long enough for a typical commute would require a semi-trailer's worth of capacitor space.

    Yes, the sun does produce all the power we'll ever need - on average >200W/m^2 over the entire earth's surface. That's a lot of power, vastly more than we consume today. The problem is harvesting it - we can't cover the entire earth with solar panels, and if we did, they wouldn't be efficient enough with today's technology. So, since there's no grand conspiracy that we can close down, we'll just have to go back to slow but sure, scientifically tested research in labs. In other words, exactly what we are doing.

  81. Irony by eurleif · · Score: 1

    Pretty ironic that Tesla might instigate a switch from AC to DC, given that Nikola Tesla fought Thomas Edison over AC vs. DC, with Tesla favoring AC. Especially ironic when you realize that a major (AC) power company is called Con Edison.

    1. Re:Irony by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You do realize that tesla Motors is an AC motor, AC system, and only the battery, inverter, and super charger are DC. Yes?
      Tesla Motors will NOT make any changes in grid systems, so absolutely nothing ironic about it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  82. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    That quote is nonsensical.
    "Solar power is the winner!"....at being environmentally friendly, not cheap or efficient.
    "Solar power provides up to 20 years of power for a single carbon investment" what an absurd metric? So if I built a power plant, and "in one investment" dumped 50 years worth of coal piles around it, it would be better than solar, by this measure?
    "(a feat which) cannot be duplicated by any other commonly used type of energy production"....other than wind. You might want to check what the phrase 'cannot be duplicated by any other' means.

    --
    -Styopa
  83. Right, because $50,000 investments are easy by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Everyone's going to have $50,000 installations to recover all that solar power. It'll be free! Better than free! Cars will run on happiness.

    1. Re:Right, because $50,000 investments are easy by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      LOL. Right now, the average car in the west costs more than $30K. Tesla's current car starts at $70K. However, in less than 3 years, they will have another one that will start at 35K. And if all goes well, by 5 years out, they will have GOOD sub-compacts that are below 27K.
      Ppl will buy. In fact, Tesla will likely be in the top 5 car companies in 5 years, and possibly #1 within 10. The reason is because all of the other car companies are desperate to keep ICE going, and bring in fuel cells that use methane or H2 stripped from methane.
      BUT, that is NOT what buyers want, esp. when it takes almost as long to re-fuel one of these as a tesla, and will costs 5x its initial and operating costs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Right, because $50,000 investments are easy by gelfling · · Score: 1

      In a similar vein homeowners in Hawaii were sold a bill of goods that if they installed solar units they could sell back power to the utility company and make their money back. No one talked it up with the utilities who weren't prepared for that level of load going into the network so they refused to allow it. Meanwhile thousands of homeowners had already installed the arrays with all of the sunk cost which, while it saves them buying some power, they're probably never going to be allowed sell it back. The economic breakeven point of these solar arrays is now so far out in the future it makes less than zero economic sense.

    3. Re:Right, because $50,000 investments are easy by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      Ok, many things wrong with what you have said there.
      1) HECO only stopped net metering for less than a year. In fact, they are getting ready to re-start it NOW.

      Hawaiian Electric is also restarting its long-delayed plan to bring a smart meter to every customer by 2018, he said. In February, HECO picked Silver Spring Networks for a deployment that’s meant to include customer energy management portals, direct load control, volt/VAR optimization, prepayment options, and distributed generation integration, as well as smart meters.

      2) with HECO charging $.332 / kWH, they are the MOST expensive electricity in the nation (national average is .12 / kWH). Interestingly, the Solar panals are just a bit more expensive to install in hawaii than on a mainland home. As such, Hawaii has the MOST number of panels installed with more than 12% now having them. The next closest is California with only 2-3%. As such, ALL of hawaii's solar install will have a payback in less than 10 years WITHOUT subsidies, and that is with a net metering of only .218 / kWH.
      3) all of the island utilities are being forced to change their systems. Basically, they are all looking for large quantities of storage.
      And here and here.

      Basically, in less than 5 years, HECO and the rest of Hawaii will lead the nation, if not the world, in having one of the most cleanest electricity going. Also, since flow batteries are now lower costs than nat gas plants, that means that HECO will likely be forced to DROP their prices. I would not be surprised to see them drop all the way below the mainland's average costs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  84. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    I am sorely disappointed that clicking that link did not take me to a diatribe about how we are all educated stupid.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  85. An interesting death spiral by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The power industry can't just die, no matter how hard we try, but....

    This is where it is going to get interesting. At some point (probably quite easy to graph) the combination of cheaper solar, cheaper durable deep cycle power storage, and braindead easy inverter and other power management technologies will make it feasible to switch to fully off grid with very little pain. I suspect that there will be some adjustment such as not being able to run the washer, dryer, vacuum, dishwasher, and a bunch of 55" TVs all at the same time but that the average household will be happy at some point to go off grid. But the key is that some people will go off grid as this equation approaches balance for a variety of reasons ranging from green thinking, a more consistent power bill (simply amortized payments for the capital cost), it came with the newly built house, and my favourite: a big FU to the power company.

    So as this equality approaches a small number of fairly well moneyed houses will make the switch. While technically the load on the power company will marginally drop, their equipment service costs will remain steady. Thus as these customers leave the remaining customers will have to pick up the slack through rate increases. This of course will drive another handful of customers away; which is now driving a vicious cycle of rate increases. All this while the cost of the installed system will drop while the cons of having such a system will vanish. Also somewhere in this process that critical point will be crossed where it is cheaper to buy an off grid system than to stay on grid.

    But there are a number of customers who can't leave. Some are simply the poor who can't obtain the credit for the capital costs, others are people in poor solar/wind locations; and then there are the high density customers who simply can't obtain a sufficient amount of renewables from their property such as tall buildings and factories.

    So the rates for these remaining folks will be prohibitive if they have to carry the entirety of the power system capital costs alone. So even these folks will begin to look elsewhere for electrical power. I suspect a popular source will be natural gas generation, either through traditional generators or through some sort of fuel cell systems. This will push up the price of natural gas but will probably be much cheaper than grid power.

    So my prediction is that the power companies and large power consumers will try to bend reality, they will attempt to make it illegal to go off grid, or they will charge regular fees to any house that does go off grid. I can see other tactics such as charging a tax for every KWh generated with your own power system. This will be in defence of not only the power companies but of the landlords and factory owners who don't want to pay for their own problems.

    But this reality bending will simply be dealt with by the free market. Factories will move closer to power generation sites or will move the power generation sites closer to the factories. The same with high density buildings. I suspect that they will figure out some way to buy power. An interesting one would be to have containers with massive batteries that are charged at a power generation site and then trucked to the building. This might sound bonkers but it could end up being cheaper than paying for the unwieldy infrastructure of a power grid.

    On top of all that this will certainly drive a massive quest for efficiency. Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house. Yet most people still do. But if these bulbs meant the difference between needing a $10,000 power system and a $20,000 power system; people would throw them out with their next trash. The same will go for nearly every appliance. People will look at the 150W 55" TV and instead and opt for the 120W 55" TV; this being something that the TV companies don't focus on much.

    On top of all that this will be another opportunity for third world countries to leapfrog over another technology as they did with landlines.

    1. Re:An interesting death spiral by jcr · · Score: 1

      But there are a number of customers who can't leave. Some are simply the poor who can't obtain the credit for the capital costs, others are people in poor solar/wind locations; and then there are the high density customers who simply can't obtain a sufficient amount of renewables from their property such as tall buildings and factories.

      I would expect those customers to still be better off, because lowered demand for coal and oil will drop the prices of those fuels.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:An interesting death spiral by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house. Yet most people still do.

      It's stupid to have incandescent bulbs in your house only if if you use enough of them to light your house up like a bloody football stadium for a night game. But most people don't. They have a handful of bulbs on at any given time, and then only for part of the day. They're poster children for electrical consumption because they're small and relatively easily exchanged, but they're not as meaningful overall as the many *other* consumers of electricity in the average house.

    3. Re:An interesting death spiral by evilviper · · Score: 2

      At some point (probably quite easy to graph) the combination of cheaper solar, cheaper durable deep cycle power storage, and braindead easy inverter and other power management technologies will make it feasible to switch to fully off grid with very little pain.

      The efficiency of charging/discharging batteries, will never be as good as the efficiency of the grid, just drawing power from a different baseload source without the storage losses.

      Combine that with the up-front cost of those batteries, and you really won't ever be saving money on the infrastructure, either, unless you're in a rather rural area with a long run of lines just serving your house.

      Factories will move closer to power generation sites or will move the power generation sites closer to the factories.

      That won't work out too well for grocery stores and all the other major industrial power users who have to sell directly to the general public.

      have containers with massive batteries that are charged at a power generation site and then trucked to the building. This might sound bonkers but it could end up being cheaper than paying for the unwieldy infrastructure of a power grid.

      That's sure to be vastly more expensive and ridiculously inefficient.

      And it's not One truck with batteries vs. The power grid... It's One truck with batteries vs. The one set of wires from the power plant to the building. A wire doesn't cost much...

      Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house. Yet most people still do.

      "any" is a stretch. I don't see non-incandescent replacements for oven lights being economical. And for very-rarely used lights (eg. attics) the payoff time for the up-front price of more efficient lights is on the order of decades...

      Where LEDs have the most overwhelming benefits, like in refrigerators, the market doesn't seem to be getting the word out, or making products that are sure to fit the form factor, and the public is utterly clueless that there is even a problem or an option.

      People will look at the 150W 55" TV and instead and opt for the 120W 55" TV

      Not a chance. Because:

      * You can't even get that information.
      * 30W is a tiny difference, completely overwhelmed by the up-front price if there is a difference.
      * You can't get the features you want in a TV, in a power envelope you demand. The two are intertwined, and nobody will sacrifice the features they're going to want to use, for a few watts of power.
      * If they cared about efficiency, they just wouldn't be getting a 55" TV in the first place, when a 40" would do the job just as well... Just a few years ago, almost nobody bought a TV larger than 32", even though they were available. Nothing has changed to make huge TVs *necessary* today.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:An interesting death spiral by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this would accentuate one of the flaws in the democratic system. More people will move to the cities for the work and will be on mains power whereas the rural areas will be cut from the mains. That's one group with the food and one with the vote...not good.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    5. Re:An interesting death spiral by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Since 2011, TVs sold in the US are required to have an EnergyGuide label detailing power use. What made 55" TVs popular is the lighter weight of flat panel displays. 32" CRTs were 200+lbs and took up a ton of room, when the average 50" LCD is less than 100lbs and mounts on the wall.

    6. Re:An interesting death spiral by evilviper · · Score: 1

      32" CRTs were 200+lbs and took up a ton of room, when the average 50" LCD is less than 100lbs and mounts on the wall.

      Projection screens, much lighter than CRTs, have been available for a long time.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  86. A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by no1nose · · Score: 1

    Comment of the year right here.

  87. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by labnet · · Score: 1

    To add to what you said.
    Australians now pay about 25c/kwh compared with 12c/kwh 10 years ago.
    The overinvestment in wires and poles was due to stupid legislation that GAURUNTEED a 10% return on any capital investment. (Gee lets spend a billion so we gaurunteed to make $100M)
    We put 40kwh of solar in at our business that with the current subsidies nets us 18% return on capital (vs 2% cash in the back)

    --
    46137
  88. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by apc512599 · · Score: 1

    Ever tried running a large industrial complex on photo volaics?

  89. Re:Load of Horse Shit by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... 40 pounds? Perhaps I need that South Korean exo-skeleton to use...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  90. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    No, but these guys have:

    http://www.sunwindenergy.com/s...

  91. Re:Load of Horse Shit by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    The next Tesla model will be a big metal box full of batteries that you park next to your house, and permanently connect.

  92. Re:Load of Horse Shit by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Will home insurance cover these panels in the event of hail and wind damage?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  93. You believe MS? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    I mean really, come on. When a broker tells you to buy, it is time to sell (and vice versa).

  94. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by msevior · · Score: 1

    I totally agree. Now the big difference is the cost differential between selling excess power back to the grid (feed-in price 8 cents) compared to purchasing from the grid at 25 cents per KWHr. The Tesla batteries are projected to cost $200 per KWHr of storage so for $2000 your average punter can get 10 KWHr of storage and likely never need to purchase electricty from the grid. So a $5000 5KW system plus $2000 for 10 KWHr of storage means no more $2500 bills per year. The system pays for itself in less than 4 years.

    There is a truely massive market if Tesla can hit their production targets at the advertised price point. Which seems possible given the extreme amount of vertical integration in the plant. Even the energy costs are provided via renewable energy buffered by their own batteries. Feed in raw lithium, aluminum, human labor, out comes batteries.

  95. Re: Good, I say by Wing_Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    the outer oxide layer helps protect the rest of the copper in the statue, but it is in salty air and does degrade
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  96. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Calibax · · Score: 1

    Will home insurance cover these panels in the event of hail and wind damage?

    I don't know. I didn't think to ask as I haven't ever seen a hail storm here and we don't get very high winds. However, chemically strengthened glass is used for the panels so they are less likely to be damaged compared to float glass. The panels are solidly anchored to the rafters and the roof is metal tiles so they aren't likely to blow away.

    I did check that everything is covered for theft or fire damage as the inverters were quite expensive back then.

  97. Re:Good, I say by Wing_Zero · · Score: 2

    The power grid is fairly faulty around here, we have power blips and brown-outs (black out lasting seconds) all the time. to the point of my boss installing 20 UPS all over his gas station. 1 each register, the satellite link(lottery and CC transactions), each pc in the office, and miscellaneous items that really don't like being ungracefully shut off.

    at least once a year the woodland creatures stage a revolt and quick-fry themselves on tower transformers and relay stations. this year alone, 3 squirrels have taken out the county's grid. (not to mention the guy with the backhoe who ripped the wires off the pole, idiot's lucky to be alive) In previous years, we had a raccoon who decided the local power relay station would be a cool place to nest, started to renovate his new den, and took us offline for 3 days.

    Now in winter, we are blessed with many feet of snowfall, and the branches push on the lines. the power companies hire tree cutting services to clear problem trees from the right of way, but sometimes a tree sags just right from the weight, and oops, there go the lights. most homes have a gas generator just for this, (I have 2 in my garage, no fun finding out one won't start when you need it)

    And this is just northern WI, i imagine some areas a bit further north with a sparse population density could have it worse.

  98. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    then one way or the other, the company is aptly named

  99. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    considering there are states where it is illegal to capture the rain that falls on your roof, I'm sure capturing photons won't be far behind...

  100. Re: Good, I say by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

    Vegetarians who eat eggs are hypocrites

    Not if they are doing it for health reasons rather than ethical reasons. But as an Omnivore I think It just means more steak for me.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  101. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that with low power LCD TVs, battery powered mobile devices, and LED lighting it's getting entirely possible to run a house with Solar power for all but Heating/cooking purposes.
    We've almost flipped on efficiency where 30 years ago Manufacturing energy bills subsidized residential costs... Residential usage has gone down by 20% in REAL numbers over the last decades (energy star, laptops, mobile phones replace giant entertainment centers) while their share of the bill has gone up.

    To "save business" most states have rebalanced the costs of producing electricity and Residences are picking up more than their share... Which is the easiest share to replace.. Leaving heavy industry struggling because nobody will build new heavy duty power generation for the next 50 years. Homes simply won't need that kind of power as population has leveled off and homes become an order of magnitude more efficient in another decade.

  102. Re:Sounds like a pollution nightmare by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    you could have posted the links you found......

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  103. Re:Good, I say by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    Back then the insulation around the copper was cotton. PVC didn't exist yet.
    Cotton crumbles to the extent that any vibration can cause it to simply fall off. Couple that with the steel tubing from that era (again replaced by PVC) and you see a house with those wires could have a continuous ground fault below the trip level of a ground fault interrupter. We had it and we saved a lot by replacing the mess with modern cables. Didn't even have to replace the tubing (although that would have been better)

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  104. Re:Good, I say by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    that's not really because the tech is bad though.

    it's just that you have a crappy power company which doesn't care...

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  105. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Even the great Tesla couldn't break the laws of physics - though if any man could, it would have to be him.

  106. The myth of the miracle battery. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Batteries have been a focus of research since about the time electricity was discovered. I doubt that someone will snap their fingers and pull the miracle battery out their hat which will beat existing system by about an order of magnitude in areas like price and capacity.

    Also: Name the battery technology and I'll name the resource you'll run out of if you're trying to build capacity in the TWh range. (possible exception: sodium-sulfur cells).

    1. Re:The myth of the miracle battery. by messymerry · · Score: 1

      What about zinc-air batteries???

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  107. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

    I have a modern thermostat and I set the low point to 72 degrees and the high point to 76 degrees and let the system figure out how to keep the house in that range.

    Is that Fahrenheit or do you live an a sauna?

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
  108. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by OolimPhon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, they are not planning to run any industry at night? Or during the monsoon season?

  109. Re:Good, I say by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a little known fact because it's actually quite wrong. Electricity does not degrade protective jackets, and reasonable forms of heating which is to be expected in a house also does not degrade the protective jacket or "insulation" as we like to call it.

    The problem you're describing has nothing at all to do with electricity and everything to do with the choice of insulation. Older installations in many houses had wires insulated with rubber. You don't need heat or changes in temperature for rubber to become brittle and crack. Age alone will do that. Other methods used were some kind of cotton tape, fibreglass, and general nasties. Modern installations are PVC. They age quite well and don't have a problem with being brittle. They do get eaten up by UV though which is why they are usually kept out of sunlight. XLPE is another modern conductor which is quite resilient. My house built in the 40s used lead mineral sheathing as the insulator. The cable is still as good now as it was back then, unfortunately also just as toxic if you are a literal wire-licker and not just a figurative one.

    Copper also does not degrade. In the presence of oxygen it will oxidise and that the layer of copper oxide then protects the copper from further degradation.

    All of this ignores one big glaring mistake you made, the grid does not have a protective jacket, and the wires are not copper which all leads into the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with running a 100 year old electricity grid.

    Now associated equipment, power poles, spacers, downcommers, fuses, transformers, protection systems, etc they all do need maintenance and periodic replacement.

  110. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Solar panels remain joke â" you need too many of them

    ...too many of them... for car-roof PV to be viable.

    Meanwhile, you can easily power your electric car with the solar panels on the roof of your HOUSE, where there's much more surface area.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  111. Re: Good, I say by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    No they aren't, unless the eggs are wrapped up in some meat-like substance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_egg/

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  112. I hope for exactly that. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Feasible electric cars and their battery technology could be exactly the thing the world needs to decentralise electric power. Let's hope for it. The energy companies are way to powerful for their own and societies good. I'm sure it would help the environment to - not just the electric car thing but the decentralisation.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  113. This is a sunbelt problem ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... go north and south of that and guess what? Solar isn't viable in any meaningful sense.

    And you know what? That's as it should be. So:

    Dear Utilities,

    Send your power to where people need it.

    Thanks,
    Person from a Dark Cold Country

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  114. Question: global power network by Cinnamon+Whirl · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered a global, rather than national, power network? I would imagine something like that would allow solar energy generated during the day to be used elsewhere, without the problems of peak demand that can currently happen.

    1. Re:Question: global power network by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work with wires. Line losses would eat up all the power. Perhaps if LEO microwave power relay stations became a reality, useful energy could be moved from one side of the planet to the other. Don't hold your breath... Most likely, we will go to amorphous distribution systems where each business or household would have some combination of wind, solar, or fuel cell power that is bi-directionally tied to a local distribution level grid. (already in place). When you have an outage, you sponge off your neighbors until you are up again and then either pay back in kind or get a bill for the power. Also for local grid security, there would be a fuel cell at the distribution substation to cover widespread outages. The bulk transmission system is based on 80 year old technologies. It needs to be retired!!!

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  115. Re:Good, I say by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    > more reliable or more efficient out there.

    Transformer efficiency has increased dramatically since the 1970s.

    Moreover, we need to replace a lot of them to get true bidirectional flows, and it would be really nice to have cap banks at all the distribution centres to fix the problems with reclosers. My power goes out for about 1/2 of a second about once a week, and that's really not something that should be happening.

    > The power grid is only fragile at times because we do not keep enough excess capacity

    No, the power "grid" is fragile because it's not a grid. If you trace the wire from your home backwards I think you'll find there is exactly one route for that power to reach the regional distribution center, probably one route from there to the 230kVA backbone, and maybe even one route from there to the actual network. Consider the mess that occurred in Montreal, in spite of one of the best developed actual *grids* in existence.

  116. Re:Good, I say by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    Carbon-fibre HT wiring appears to be going widespread over the next 20 years. That's a 3x increase in energy density.

  117. Re:Good, I say by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble

    My home was built in 1917 or earlier. The wiring is knob-n-tube. The insulation is quite brittle and will break. It won't if you don't move it. The wire is fine in either case.

    You're wrong.

  118. do what they do, not what they say by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    MS, like GS, has ample capital to deploy in areas they see as real opportunities. I would discount their vehement jawboning (which is trying to convince others to buy.. what they're selling! what a coincidence!) and instead look to where they are themselves deploying capital.

  119. Re:Good, I say by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, found those in my house (1926) when I was renovating, they were in steel pipes and in reasonable condition. No crumbling. I also found thick steel gaspipes leading to the center of every ceiling. They were still pressurized. Needless to say I removed all those. I kept the bakelite switches.

  120. Re: Good, I say by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it wasn't aluminum wiring? That stuff is horrible, and happened around then briefly.

    My 100 year old knob and tube copper is completely workable.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  121. corrected headline by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    Scrub the word 'betting' from the headline, as there is no indication they are putting any money where their mouth is,,
    Why Morgan Stanley Is Continually Trying to Convince Investors That Tesla Will Kill Your Power Company

    but of course, that's not accurate either, because the article and reports merely report THAT morgan stanley is making the pitch, not WHY.. so maybe it should be :
    Morgan Stanley Continues to Try and Sell Investors On A Company That Has Paid Them Many Millions in Underwriting Fees and Stands to Pay Them Many More Millions More If They Can The Public Buying It
    FIFY

  122. Re:This explains why republicans push coal by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Not sure if troll, but you have heard of storing energy?
    For instance, and to name but a few of the most recent innovations
    http://www.popularmechanics.co...

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  123. Re:Good, I say by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    Just like to mention that the transformers are oil cooled and require regular maintenance (ie, change their oil). The oil is slightly hydroscopic and absorbs water over time, if left for too long it causes a short and a high voltage arc in several thousand litres of oil makes a very big boom.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  124. Re: Good, I say by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    reread the post. He specifically said the "sheathing" not the copper wire,

  125. Why don't eletric powered cars have solar panels? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

    Why don't they have panels on the roof/hood? I am sure there are plenty of reasons, but I am not familiar with solar panel technology myself.

  126. pshaw! you call that consumer abuse?!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    In Florida, we get the privilege of paying in advance for DECADES for nuclear projects that never get built.
    We'd see more benefit from that spending if we literally burned the money.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  127. Re:Good, I say by fractoid · · Score: 1

    "Vegetarian" often refers to ovo-lacto-vegetarians, ie. people who will eat eggs and milk products but not the flesh of animals. Compare with 'vegan' which refers to people who eat no animal products at all.

    I'm ovo-lacto-vegetarian and I eat a lot of eggs, they're one of my main sources of protein and when fried they're delicious.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  128. Re: Good, I say by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    It could be. Enough other things in my house have wound up to be horrible and needing repair. As much as I like not having a landlord to answer to, there are days when I miss being able to say "X is broken. I'll call the landlord so he can get it fixed."

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  129. Re:Good, I say by operagost · · Score: 2

    Wires from a home built in the 1970's are often so brittle that they crumble. not just the jacket coatings but the copper itself. This is due to heat. Heat comes from resistance.

    If you ever saw 1970s cabling that had the insulation breaking down, much less the copper itself, then it was overloaded far past its design limit. Normal usage does not cause breakdowns. There is one exception, in that the insulation used before the 1980s did have a temp limit of 60 degrees C, which could be exceeded readily when used inside an enclosed light fixture. Since then, the standard is 90 C and you will see a warning on any new enclosed fixtures to make sure your cabling is rated properly.

    Copper breaking down? No way. It couldn't even get corroded except where the insulation is stripped away-- and I haven't seen that unless there was a water intrusion problem. If you have water getting on your wiring, your structure won't be around long enough for the copper to "break down".

    Think about it: do you think everyone with wiring over 40 years old is about to have their house burn down? I've replaced wiring older than that and it wasn't broken down. I replaced it because it doesn't meet our current heat standard or was damaged by pests.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  130. Re:Good, I say by bobbied · · Score: 1

    No, it's a grid nearly all the way to my home. Now, my neighborhood gets power from a power pole right next to the city's Police, Fire and Emergency Management Center, and is just down the road from the main phone switch center so I'm sure we benefit from a really strict SLAs and redundancy required for that.

    There is a lot of redundancy engineered into the system on purpose and although having loops is a difficult engineering problem to manage, they can and do have them well into the local distribution system, especially in cities and metropolitan areas. You get out past the suburbs and it gets a bit less redundant, but that's because they don't have customers who are willing to pay enough for SLA's that require redundancy.

    But my point is that the grid is far from fragile and far from being "outdated".

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  131. Re:Good, I say by operagost · · Score: 1

    If you're talking about the old pushbuttons, they're neat but I hear the issue with them is that they arc a lot more than modern switches. I imagine if the switch is not overly worn, it's OK, but I wonder if any of those oldies are enough to trip the arc fault protectors we use in the modern code.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  132. Re:Good, I say by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you live in a rural location, you may have issues, but the whole grid remains stable, even if your little branch of it isn't.

    I live in a major metropolitan area and in 10 years I have had my power go out twice. Once when lighting hit the feed line, shorting one phase to ground for the neighborhood out in front of the city's main Fire, Police and emergency station which houses our 911 service center, and once when they replaced the transformer in front of my home because it was leaking. I also monitor the voltages (though my UPS) and we've not had any sagging noted over the past year's worth of logs.

    My point is, the grid in general is stable. That your electric delivery service provider chooses not to properly maintain their equipment does not negate that.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  133. Re: Good, I say by operagost · · Score: 1

    Again, that has nothing to do "wear" caused by electricity, but by environmental factors.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  134. Re: Good, I say by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    If it is, you should know, because that can be dangerous when attached to normal wiring stuff (it oxidizes with standard equipment), and just in general (it oxidizes in general too).

    I can't bend my copper wiring, but I can definitely work with it if I leave it be. Also, maybe some wires were strands like a lamp wire, I don't know, the copper anywhere I've lived has been a single thick wire, but I could see how if it was like lamp wire it could crumble with age.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  135. Anyone else find it odd... by TheLastManSitting · · Score: 1

    That JP Morgan's company is backing Tesla?

    Surely I cant be the only one that finds that humorous. After all JP Morgan was the first person in the world to have a private home lit by Edison's Direct Current electricity. When Telsa joined the company a bit later and tried to convince Morgan and Edison that Alternating Current (Today's Standard) was the future they told him he was wrong and AC was dangerous. Frustrated by their inability to see his invention for what it was he quit and went to work for Westinghouse as a competitor.

    Morgan and Edison went so far as to create the electric chair out of AC just to try and ruin the career of Telsa. It backfired of course and everyone blamed Edison for creating the chair and paid zero attention to the fact that he used Tesla's alternating current.

    Fast forward a hundred years and Morgan's legacy company is out in the public saying Telsa is the future. I love it.

  136. Thanks for making his point for him by sladman.returns · · Score: 1

    You need to finish reading the article you posted. Some gems include that solar is now the cheapest electricity source in some sunny areas, that it's price continues to drop rapidly, and that if coal burning paid the real costs (including paying $50/ tonne for the carbon they put into our collective atmosphere) then photovoltaics would already be on par or cheaper throughout Germany (the source of the prices the article is quoting).

  137. Re:Good, I say by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Little known fact electricity running through wires degrades the wires and the protective jacket on them.

    This is not about the wiring in your house or the insulation on it. This was about the power grid, which uses very few insulated wires. Most of the power grid consists of aluminum and steel bare wires hanging from poles which is extremely durable and not degraded by the current passing though it.

    Corrosion is not generally a big issue either, except in coastal areas or places where there is a lot of moisture. But like all things, the grid requires maintenance. You need to replace wooden poles, insulators, and transformers repair broken wires and such regularly. This should come as no surprise.

    Just as a reference point.. My family used to own a farm which was serviced by a rural electric company. We where the last house on the branch that ran about 3 miles from the main highway. We moved into that house nearly 40 years ago and the wires which are there now, are EXACTLY the same ones that where there when we moved in. I'm told that the house had electric power prior to the previous owner's buying it and that was 10 years before we owned it, so it's pretty much certain that the wires are 50 years or more old and still going strong today (as are most of the poles that hold them up), which tells me they are very likely to be the original wires placed there way back with the rural electric push was on in the 50's.

    I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.. Wires don't really wear out... The insulation might, but the wires don't.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  138. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Calibax · · Score: 3, Informative

    Out of curiosity, what was the pre-subsidy and tax incentive cost, or alternatively what were those subsidies/taxes?

    The installation is rated at 8.9 kW DC (7.5 kW AC) and the total cost was $65,000. I received a check from the state of California for $29,000 and a tax credit of $5,000. So my out-of-pocket cost was $31,000 . All numbers rounded and in 2003 dollars.

  139. Re:Good, I say by weszz · · Score: 1

    Brilliant! what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    I for one can't see anything. Engineers could fix problems from anywhere in the world... from their smart phone.

  140. Smart Grids by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Not sure how to get into this conversation (and I haven't RTFA), it reminds me of Smart Grids presentation. Speaker showed a diagram of how things were back in the days. One big power plant sending only power out, goes through transmission lines and distribution systems (only one way), and then to the users (only "feedback" is the electric meter with its disk going round and round, ticking the little numbers for the meter reader to note how much to bill you). Then he showed a diagram where the distribution system has all kinds of switches, loads measurement, and fault detection. And now you have users squirting power back into the system. On top of that there is digital information of system status in those lines. Actually quite fascinating, most of us don't even think about those light green boxes here and there occupying a small space along the highway. I've not studied it much but it's interesting. http://www.sandc.com/blogs/ind...

    I do remember back in the days when PG&E did everything (north Calif). Generate the power, owned and serviced the transmission lines and distribution system, did the billing, etc. It also seemed there were more service trucks back then (I used to ask the PG&E guys if they had anything to spare, I got few hardware items that fun to have). PG&E does the billing and servicing of local lines but someone else owns the power plants and the big transmission lines.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  141. How many gallons of fuel by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    How many gallons of fuel does it take to charge a Tesla car? I know its off topic kinda but is there real value to elect cars. Seems to me we need a solar charging system to make any real dent in our insatiable oil diet. The oil WILL run out I think much sooner then later but that's just IMO

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  142. Re:Good, I say by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years. Yea, there is some OLD equipment out there, but it is not like running electricity though wires somehow wears them out, so why would you replace it if it's still working just fine?

    Do you mean to say you haven't experienced Digital Electricity? Though, to get the best out of it, you should only use the best Monster cables. I can't even imagine using my toaster with the old fashioned analog electricity I had to put up with growing up.

  143. No way. by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    I'm a fan of solar and wind. I buy into the optional wind-source program offered by our local utility even though it raises my electricity bill by about 5%.

    But when I recently looked into installing solar, got a quote from a local installer, it was going to cost $13k (after federal tax credit/subsidy) to buy and install a grid-tied system. That would replace about 1/2 the 700 kwH / month that we use at our house (gas heat, gas hot water, gas cooktop). Our utility charges $0.135 / kwH. The payback for the installation without counting on any alternative return on investment for the $13k was 16 years. The other assumption is that the solar system requires no maintenance.

    Here is some of the information I got from the installer during the bid process:

    1. In northern states in the USA, you can figure on about 1,250 kwH per year from 1,000 watts (manufacturer peak rating?) of panels. So if you use 625 Kwh / month, you need 6,000 watts of rated power to replace your usage 100%. That's only 24 250 watt panels, or a panel price of 6,000-$7,500.

    2. If your panels do not get 100% equal sunlight, the array will produce at the rate of the most shaded panel. UNLESS you buy the panels with the inverter/converter built into it. Then each panel produces whatever it can, independent of the production of the other panels.

    3. Batteries are expensive and they wear out in 10 years. So if you buy a big battery system for $6,000, you're effectively spending $600 / year on the batteries unless you make unicorn-rainbow assumptions about advances in battery technology. For this reason, a grid-tied system is probably going to be about $50 / month more cost effective.

    4. Mounting systems for attaching the panels to your roof can cost around $100 per panel.

    So, install it if it makes you feel good, or if you live in a place where power costs far more than the $0.135 / kwh it costs where I live. But until the costs drop by 50% or the price of power doubles, I'm not going to buy.

    I think Morgan Stanley is probably going to turn out to be wrong. I don't think we'll see solar panel prices continue to drop 20% / year and right now, panel prices are only about 1/3d the cost of a system, the other pieces and the labor are 2/3rds, so even if solar panels dropped 20%, the cost of an installation would drop at best 10%, and more likely something like 6.7%.

    Large-scale wind farms look more likely to me.

  144. Re:Good, I say by zephvark · · Score: 1

    potatoes take 15-20 minutes to bake in the microwave

    We're straying off-topic here but, that's ridiculous. Even a large potato doesn't take more than about five minutes in the microwave, then an equal amount of time to finish cooking and cooling down. Just wrap it in a damp paper towel and put it directly on the turntable. It's easier than making popcorn.

  145. Do I have a power company? by Optali · · Score: 1

    I didn't notice. Need to be more careful with online shopping.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  146. or by raind · · Score: 1

    There hedging - either way they will profit.

    --
    Get up!
  147. Use LEDs, roc97007 by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    What I'd like to do eventually is have parallel wiring in the house, one string coming from the inverter, and one coming straight from the batteries, (through a fuse box of course) so that things like lights and electronic devices that don't mind working on 12 volts can use the native voltage, and things that need 110 will have 110. (Did you know that you could get CFLs that run on 12 volts?)

    If you have 12 volts DC, you can set up some cheap, efficient, and long-lasting LEDs. Most of the cost and inefficiency of "lightbulb replacement" LEDs are because they need a transformer and rectifier to reduce the household current to low voltage DC; if you already have that you are probably better off using LEDs, and they will be (much!) cheaper, more efficient, and longer lasting than the "screw into a regular lightbulb socket LEDs", and also than compact fluorescent.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  148. Re:Good, I say by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Give him credit for pointing something that actually does exist, even if it is only in a lab. I'm surprised we haven't had people talking about all the space-based solar arrays with microwave downlink as part of the grid.

  149. Morgan Stanley is ALWAYS wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    What will happen is that Utilities WILL change, but they will not die. They are expected to deliver not just electricity, but nat gas in most of them.
    Instead, what will happen is that they will simply move away from peaking plants, and use batteries instead. These will be charged by wind, nukes, and nat gas power plants through the night. Then in the daytime, they will be able to provide solid electricity quickly.
    In addition, this will allow utilities to move away from a large multiple utility grid (America has 3 grids), and instead use a number of small grids in which excess local solar is sold to the utility for their batteries, while a faster, larger grid will allow for large base-load plants to provide electricity.

    For those of you who say that batteries are not coming, then ignore Tesla and focus on multiple companies that are doing flow batteries.
    In particular, my favorite remains EOS energy.
    These are now being built and tested by multiple utilities. For example, on the east coast, which has high prices for electricity, they are now testing these.
    Then we have California that requires that utilities will have more than 1 GWH of storage.

    So, when MS is claiming that Utlities are dead, they could not be more wrong. They will just transform and very likely will make a decent profit upon their grid and energy storage.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  150. Re:Oh yea of little faith in Tesla by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Not tesla.
    Solar City is going to transform from a simple solar company, to an energy company.
    They are currently working towards geo-thermal and wind energy.
    There is some evidence that they are also working on nukes.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  151. Shorting? by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

    All these gloom-and-doom reports from an investment company? I wonder if they're shorting the utility companies.

    1) Short the stock of the utility companies
    2) Release predictions of doom
    3) Wait for stock to drop
    4) ...
    5) Profit

    But naw, that would be unethical, our banks and investment companies would never do something like that. Obviously.

  152. Re:Explain this to me by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    EXACTLY.
    It is the same BS when ppl claim that electricity can now replace 100% of oil. Yet, they ignore the fact that batteries are NOT ready for semi trucks or that Oil is used for more than just energy. Basically, ppl do not think this through. Electric cars can and should help smooth the electric curve, but then they will need to be charged in the middle of the night. As such, the question becomes what do you use? Wind can NOT be counted on. Solar is gone. And coal is too expensive. In light of climate change, then nat gas will also be a mistake long term.
    As such, the only real base-load power plants should be things like hyrdo, nukes, geo-thermal. These should be combined with wind to lower the costs and keep from taking all of the energy. For example, if geo-thermal is ran at 100% all of the time, each well will lower their temp over time. Instead, you want to use it only part of the time and allow earth energy to continue to flow to it. Therefore wind and nukes are great back-ups to it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  153. Re:Load of Horse Shit by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Most home owners would take your caution about carpenter ants as a how to on getting rid of harmful pests.

  154. Re:Load of Horse Shit by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Did you thank your neighbors for subsidizing your ability to do this or do you simply laugh at them for being so gullible?

  155. Re:In the words of Grumpy Cat....Good by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Because the water table in that area is maintained by that lake and some toxins can transfer.

  156. Re:Good, I say by forrie · · Score: 1

    As I understand, back in world war II, Einstein presented Truman with the atom bomb; Tesla presented him the "death ray". Had the US Gov't gone with Tesla, our world energy grid might be a very different configuration now.

    There's a significant amount of money being made by the energy industry, who essentially has us enslaved. They will do anything they can to lobby against free energy, but it's the wave of the future -- personally, I'd love to see this not just for the reduced expenditure, but for the environment /and/ some relish in watching the present power industry model crumble. It probably won't all go one way or the other -- adopting newer technology is almost always expensive, unless Tesla can find a way around that, with reduced costs (that will be key). The Sun (and other forms) provides for it, why shouldn't we benefit from it? Yes, I realize that's very idealistic, but I think we're getting closer to it becoming a reality.

  157. Re:Explain this to me by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Yet, they ignore the fact that batteries are NOT ready for semi trucks

    Use electricity to synthesize hydrocarbons, run trucks (and planes, and ships) with those.

    or that Oil is used for more than just energy.

    Oil (and natural gas) is also used as a source of hydrogen. Which can also be produced using electricity.

    Oil is also used for making lubricants ... see "synthesizing hydrocarbons" above.

    Wind can NOT be counted on.

    Wind availability can be determined statistically. And the more turbines you install and the large the area covered, the less likely you are to run into a "no wind at all" situation.

  158. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Calibax · · Score: 1

    There is nothing to stop my neighbors from doing installing solar also - and several have.

    Do householders thank their neighbors for the break they get on their mortgage interest that allows them to afford their houses?
    Do the various fossil fuel industries thank every tax payer for the huge subsidies that they receive?
    Do farmers thank everyone for their subsidies that permits them to grow crops like tobacco that kill tax payers?

    Governments have always promoted certain types of behavior with subsidies and tax breaks. There's nothing wrong in going along with their wishes if it benefits you also.

  159. The not-so-stupidity of incandescent bulbs by phorm · · Score: 2

    Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house

    I can think of a number of reasons to have incandescent bulbs in a house, though most aren't related to power. The foremost is that if I break an incandescent bulb, I just scoop up the shards and toss them in the bin. Here's what they say to do if you break a CFL bulb. I'm sorry, but a broken bulb shouldn't require me to turn off my AC and essentially evacuate the room of vulnerable persons. LED bulbs are somewhat safer in that regard, but the light quality/quantity isn't realy as good and if I break one of those then I cry at the replacement cost.

    Usually this means that I have the higher-efficiency bulbs in places where they're less likely to break, and I keep incandescent bulbs in places where there's a higher possibility of breakage (the shop, trouble-light, some lamps, etc). Generally the latter are areas that aren't on as often anyhow. As a bonus in the shop, the heat leakage actually warms things up a bit in the winter.

    Also, one of my peeves against the new "efficient" bulbs is that - though they cost more - they were supposed to last much longer. This was much more of a cost-saver than the actual energy. I'm still up-in-the-air about LED bulbs, but I've found that CFL's burn out just as frequently as incandescents, possibly more-so in some situations (low-wattage incandescent tend to last a fairly long time).

  160. Re:Load of Horse Shit by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    The solution is not poisoning wildlife living next to you, but building houses not from wood, or other edible materials, like gingerbread, but stone, or clay. Ytong is pretty good stuff for instance.

  161. Re:Good, I say by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I'm catholic, or some variation on that topic, going off on a tangent, but by kosher in the judeo-christian abrahamic religions we mean causing least amount of pain possible, the original quoted text being: do not eat a limb ripped off of a live animal - meaning kill it first please, as fast and efficient as possible, don't make it suffer for a long time, don't torture it - and in the old days that did mean killing an animal with a knife stuck in their throat. These days we can shock them unconscious first, and then you don't even have to go for the neck. Also, that's how most wild animals like lions do it, at the neck, the most efficient and kosher way. If you have a bulldog or other large dog attack, protect your throat with your hands, let them bite onto that, as they go for your neck instinctively, and you can survive most other bites, to legs, arms, body, head.

  162. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Works fine. There are places where that's happened, but if the industrial complex knows PV is involved, they complain.

  163. Re:Good, I say by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I don't usually wrap it, but I hear it simmering in about 4 minutes, but it does not cook through in 10, it's like it needs time to sit at the cooking temperature. I could try bringing it up to temp, cutting the power, bringing it up again, cutting the power. I don't usually wrap them, but now you're giving me an idea about some polypropylene insulation, like a microwaveable plastic dish, with a small hole on it to vent steam, or just the lid loose, to keep the heat contained, while you generate that sawtooth temperature profile of 100C slow to 90 back to hundred slow to 90. Up on the mountainside you can only get 90C temp when cooking with water because of low air pressure therefore low boiling point temperature, and stuff takes even longer to cook, but it does cook eventually even at 90C. I just haven't bothered that much. My microwave is touchy, it likes to blow fuses as it shuts down automatically when the timer is up, and it won't start again, so I have to cut the power at the extension cord socket switch before the timer is up and, and this way there is no outrush current from the transformers, it has nowhere to go, it can't go back into the power grid, the amps stay low, and it saves the fuse.

  164. Re:Good, I say by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    They aren't pushbuttons, you have to turn the knob. They make a fairly loud sound but seem to work fine so far. Haven't had any problems.

  165. Re:Good, I say by Agripa · · Score: 1

    I have worked on plenty of continuously powered instrumentation and test gear older than that which never displayed the problem you describe with the copper itself disintegrating although insulation often becomes brittle or fails in other ways. What I would believe though is that the decaying insulation outgassed something which attacked the copper and I have seen that happen even on insulated wire newer than World War 2. With insulation which does this, higher temperature operation accelerates the process.

  166. Re:Load of Horse Shit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes.

  167. Re:Macroeconomic investment theses are always wron by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, 5% cashflow profit and 10-20% principle growth just sucks. What stocks grow like real estate? And real estate pays dividends too, called "rent". Look it up.

  168. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    cheap solar panels made in China.

    Why would you buy the most expensive solar panels, then complain about the price?

  169. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    But most people who sell back get paid at the higher 25 cent price, not the 8 cent price. If you went nuts and put a 100 kW setup at your house and had no other agreements, you'd get paid at 8 cents. But the general user pays 25 cents for power used or is paid 8 cents for power generated, on a monthly basis. So if you use 10 kWh over night, and generate 20 kWh the next day, then use 10 kWh that night, you are net 0, so you'd pay 0, and get 0. Do your ROI is from the 25 cent number. Only if, at the end of the month, you fed back in more than you used, would you get paid the 8 cent number. That'd only happen if you went out of town for a month in the middle of summer or other unusual case.

  170. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Using EV car batteries to act as storage for the grid -is a silly idea with one fatal little flaw - the daily time cycle at least for the average commuter car just doesn't fit. -
    You generate solar electricity during the day - when your car isn't at home. You discharge the car battery during the night to provide power, but you also need to charge the same battery during the night so that the car will be ready in the morning.

    The solution is obviously a separate battery to provide house level grid storage. If you also have an electric car - then a third battery to allow overnight charging, or more efficiently to swap the two car batteries over.
    My solution - solar generation near the equator used to create synthetic ethanol on a large scale. - Then ship it out the countries that need it. So why does the equator get more sunlight? mainly because the light has a smaller incidence angel and so less atmosphere to get through..

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  171. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Your comparison doesn't make sense. Sure, a tank of petrol is denser than a battery, but a machine to turn the output of a solar cell into petrol isn't, and the machine to take that power and turn it back into something your house's electrical system can use (with little loss) is also big. Connecting your car's fuel tank up to both machines every time you park is not feasible. In contrast, connecting a power cable to your battery is pretty easy.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  172. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by evilviper · · Score: 1

    My solution - solar generation near the equator used to create synthetic ethanol on a large scale. - Then ship it out the countries that need it.

    The conversion losses in that would be absolutely astronomical, and wouldn't hope to compare with local solar/wind power charging batteries, pumped-hydro storage, or just regular grid balancing between different power sources.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  173. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Its all about scale - we would be talking about arrays of 100's of square km.. and I am only talking about ethanol for use in vehicles.. Once made Ethanol can store a lot of energy in a relatively compact space in a fairly stable form- that can be stored and shipped in the way that standard gas /petrol is.
    Anyway I said its my solution but only one of several - I actually favour the development of more advanced nuclear technology, and nuclear fusion. Fusion is currently slated as taking up to 50 years to come on stream, but if it was given proper funding and higher priority that could be reduced to ~ 20 years. (the biggest delays are caused by lack of scale in the specialist steel fabrication required.)

    Grid level storage is still a big problem that is still not completely solved...
    Batteries on a large enough scale could do it but there are still huge technical and logistical problems in simply making and maintaining so many batteries. - Plus on this scale high energy batteries create substantial fire/explosion risks. - Plus with the kind of heavy usage needed for grid storage lifespan would probably be limited to 1 or 2 years at most so recycling and reuse would be very important.
    Hydro storage on the scales needed also has enormous problems - very high build costs, the need for mountains to sacrifice, large areas of land, the need for vast amounts of water- which should be fresh water not salt. Plus with this kind of system the stored energy in the water creates a major potential flooding danger to surrounding areas. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (it was only pure luck that Taum soak didn't kill anyone)
    All forms of energy production or usage have problems - nuclear kills 50 to maybe a 1000 people per year and releases radiation into the environment, coal kills something like 0.5 to 1.5 million a year, fracking is toxic and environmentally damaging, even wind turbines can kill.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  174. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Ethanol can store a lot of energy in a relatively compact space in a fairly stable form

    It can, but we can only convert a fraction of it into usable energy.

    Methanol is better, just because we have working methanol fuel cells (often in forklifts) right now.

    Grid level storage is still a big problem that is still not completely solved...

    1) Nope. We've got many megawatts of pumped-hydro storage installed. Existing dams can be retrofitted with pumps pretty easily, IF it was needed.
    2) Solar panels are extremely predictable, and track pretty close to peak electrical demand.
    3) Solar thermal offers free thermal storage with molten sodium.
    4) Solar/wind does NOT need storage to work on the grid:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  175. About fucking time by qraal2502 · · Score: 1

    Time for capitalism to return to the people who do the work. Enough moneyed Lords and their manipulations.

  176. Re:Load of Horse Shit by jwhitener · · Score: 1

    Are you selling back to the grid to balance out to a zero cost bill, or storing electricity for later peak use in your house (batteries, etc..)?

  177. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Tajas · · Score: 1

    I've seen that some people who generate their own power, by it hydro-electric or solar, can actually generate so much power that they can then sell it back to the electric company and by paid by the electric company for it. In the video from Solar City, as Tesla endorses them, they show the power meter moving in the other direction and then getting a credit from the power company.