Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Plans To Disconnect 'Almost All' Superchargers From the Grid In Favor of Solar and Battery Power (electrek.co)
Only half a dozen Supercharger stations or so out of the over 800 stations have solar arrays and batteries, but that may be about to change. Elon Musk said Tesla plans to deploy more battery and solar systems with the upcoming "Version 3" of the Supercharger, adding that "almost all Superchargers will disconnect from the electricity grid." Electrek reports: Previously, Musk said that Tesla's new Powerpack and solar arrays will power some Supercharger stations in sunny regions to go off-grid -- adding that "the grid won't be needed for moderate use Superchargers in non-snowy regions." While it makes sense to add solar arrays and battery packs, it's not clear why there would be a need to completely disconnect from the grid, which is often still useful -- especially if net metering is available. Even in regions where coal dominates electricity generation, electric cars are still more efficient than some of the most efficient gas-powered cars. Therefore, the argument could have ended here, but Musk apparently wants to take Tesla's Supercharger network off-grid as part of the company's mission to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. Depending on the size and popularity of a Supercharger station, which generally varies from 6 partly used stalls to 20 stalls in almost constant use, Tesla would need some significantly large solar arrays at some stations -- almost football field in size. Unless there are some impressive advancements in efficiency, it's not clear how they would make it happen.
1) low to moderate usage stations are self-surviving, and can pretty much be left to their own devices (outside of having to send out for repairs if someone breaks a charger). They have no persistent cost from a local utility billing. This also gives the local government less leverage over Tesla.
2) This helps reduce the "hur hur electric cars still burn coal/etc by proxy". If they can get most of the Supercharger network off the grid, most electric cars wouldn't be powered by anything other than the sun.
3) They aren't beholden to power grid compatibility. I'm not sure what innovation or tricks you can pull due to this, but not having to be compatible with the existing electrical system means you can directly do whatever you want with AC or DC and maybe save a few thousand on a transformer or other conversion.
There are so many, for lack of a better word, "Haters" who think that we can't have nice things and all technology must be destroyed if we are going to save the earth. By disconnecting from the grid Musk wants to make a point: This technology is sustainable. There are no outside inputs that need to go into it to make it work once it's setup. Somebody will say that the batteries or the cells will wear out eventually, but if it lasts for more than 20 years, what are they really going to say then? That's the point he wants to make, that there is hope for the future, we're not all going to die, there is another way to save the world besides deindustrialization and the massive drop in standards of living and population that would have to follow.
Someone in California has forgotten that it can rain in non-snowy regions. It can even be heavily clouded when it doesn't rain.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Don't you people see what happening here?! Elon is going to suck up all the sunlight with his solar panels and we'll have to pay him for electricity to turn on LED light bulbs! With no sunlight, all the plants will die and we'll have to pay him for electricity for our oxygen scrubbers! Someone has to stop this mad man! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
As in, over time, batteries will become so awesome that we won't need to be connected to the grid anymore. He doesn't say it's happening today.
More power to him.
and that is going away. My utility no longer does net metering. They pay me about 10c/kwh generated and in summer I pay them about 15c/kwh for every kwh I consume. Yeah, you guessed it, I pay a nickel per kwh my panels produce and I consume. Winter I am in a lower price tier so my consumption price drops to about 10c/kwh so it is basically net metering. But they keep dropping the price they pay me per kwh and raising the price I pay them.
The Paris accord is voluntary so the only benefit of dropping out was for appearances.
Appearances of course are the entire game for Trump - not much help for anyone else though.
As it is, tesla/solar city continues to push all to stay connected to the grid. Now, he wants to separate? Big mistake.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Pretty simple. Animal-powered electrical generators. He might even have some type of "Wheel of Pain" for those people who want to buy a Tesla but just can't afford one with money.
Depending on the size and popularity of a Supercharger station, which generally varies from 6 partly used stalls to 20 stalls in almost constant use, Tesla would need some significantly large solar arrays at some stations -- almost football field in size. Unless there are some impressive advancements in efficiency, it's not clear how they would make it happen.
Simple, change the business so the 20 stall location isn't so busy. You can close the stalls, or you can charge a surge price based on demand for stalls.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is already a solved problem. Slap some batteries or other energy storage devices (e.g. industrial flywheels) on the "unpredictable" sources and you can capture that energy for later use, thus making it predictable. And despite your claim that "[t]hese are just facts", the rest of what you said is actually fact-free philosophizing. Rather elegantly written for a troll, to be sure, but fact-free, nonetheless.
Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.
on the Interstate highways. Buy lots of cheap land and put in a charging station every so many miles
I wasn't aware that land with direct access to the Interstates could be had on the cheap.
This is already a solved problem.
You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead.
It is NOT a solved problem and as industrious as Americans are they cannot break the laws of physics.
The problem with batteries, flywheels, and such is that they use materials to produce. This means that they take up space, cost money, and must come from something. This is mostly about cost since the way we measure space and materials is on how much it costs. The cost of solar and wind power will always cost more than coal and nuclear power because it takes more material and space to get the same output. This is especially true since the storage systems and redundant power also take more space and material.
We can add in labor costs too. People make a big deal on how wind and solar now employs as much people as coal now, or whatever the claim is. This not good, it is very bad. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas each produces about 1/3rd of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar combined produces about 1/20th. If you translate that manpower into dollars then you have another cost problem above the space and material costs.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
They will be heavily raked South in the Winter so the snow will slide right off. The real problem is low productivity due to low radiation rates.
You've just moved the goalposts. I was addressing the AC's unpredictability concern. You're talking about the physical size of infrastructure, a wholly unrelated topic, and you've dragged nuclear into it too for reasons I can't fathom.
I really don't feel like trying to convince you of anything much, though I will chime in regarding the topic of labor costs: I think they're a red herring being used by both sides. The labor levels are only high for renewables because we're in a state of transition during which there are a lot of one-time installations. Those jobs will disappear as we reach a stable state, along with the benefits and drawbacks tied to them.
Sure, coal is cleaner than solar. There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume. Yes, it is that easy, absolutely zero space needed. As for the materials, they are common and cheaper than the pro-coal-religion nutjobs claim (yes, the pro-coal nutjobs are a religion, as it's a belief held in opposition of logic and evidence)..
Learn to love Alaska
> What you proposed would mean the cost of that electricity would be at least double what it costs if produced by coal.
Wrong. Solar is already cheaper than coal in sunny states without subsidies.
There's a reason coal isn't being built anymore and it's because it's uneconomical.
I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward. I still think it has no relevance whatsoever to a discussion about the reliability of wind and solar.
As for moving the goalposts, on rereading what was said in light of what you just said, I think I see where you were coming from. For my part, my intent was simply to poke a troll for fun while pointing out that there are obvious techniques available and in use to address the "unpredictability" problem. It wasn't intended as an endorsement for solar or wind, and you're quite correct to point out that I overstated things by declaring them "solved".
Assume on average a 85 kWh battery pack getting a 50% supercharge. 85 kWh * 0.5 = 42.5 kWh. Real-world charging efficiency is about 80%, so 53.125 kWh is needed to put 42.5 kWh into the car's battery.
Assume 160 W/m^2 commercial panels. PV solar capacity factor in the desert Southwest is about 0.185. That is, over a year, a 100 Watt panel will produce the equivalent of a constant 18.5 Watts. So the 160 W/m^2 panels will produce 160 Watts * 0.185 = 29.6 Watts average over 24 hours, or 0.7104 kWh / m^2 in 24 hours.
This means to supercharge a single Telsa S requires 53.125 kWh / 0.7104 kWh/m^2 = 74.78 m^2 of solar panels.
Oh wait, you're gonna store that solar energy in a battery first? That's going to introduce more charging and discharge losses. If you figure 90% for both, that's 74.78 m^2 / (0.9*0.9) = 92.32 m^2 of solar panels needed for every car you want to supercharge that day.
How busy is a Supercharger station? Summary says 6-20 stalls per station, so say 13 average. Figure they're half occupied during day hours, empty at night. At 30 minutes to charge, that's 2 per hour per bay, or (6.5 bays occupied)*(2 vehicles per bay per hour)*(12 hours) = 156 vehicles charged per day.
So to generate enough electricity to supercharge those 156 vehicles requires (156 vehicles)*(92.32 m^2/vehicle) = 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per Supercharger station. Or approx 120m x 120m of solar panels. Or put another way, the average home solar installation is about 30 m^2. So each Supercharger station would need as many panels as 480 homes.
AC if an area has a lot of snow it might have hydro. So the grid can be used for that.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"A meter of snow also means you're not driving anywhere. So what's your point?"
I take it that you don't live in snow country. Difficult though it may be to believe, major roads, and some minor ones, in populated areas are generally kept open even during major snowstorms. Not that driving when it's snowing 5 or 10cm an hour is any picnic. And it's discouraged except for essential traffic. But it's usually possible.
OTOH, clearing large surfaces like solar arrays where if can't just shove the snow off into a corner with a snowplow is time consuming.
Ice is worse. Much worse. And it's not necessarily transparent if, as sometimes happens, snow is frozen into the surface of the ice.
BTW, Montreal at 46N latitude doesn't get a whole lot of sunshine in December even on (rather uncommon) sunny days. But they have abundant, inexpensive, electricity from hydro dams in Northern Quebec
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Would it not make more sense to sell the surplus back to the grid
So if the roads are being cleared of snow for use, why not clear the solar panels too? I would expect in such areas they will have thought about a plan for clearing the snow off in these circumstances.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Just realized, that the whole supercharger station could actually go DC.
The solar panels, the supercharger and the PowerPack work all with around 600V DC. DC-DC converters are cheap and efficient, especially if the voltage difference is small.
Every AC-DC/DC-AC inverter has an intermediate direct current link. You can more or less just rip out all of the AC stuff and wire all intermediate direct current links together.
You can still install a AC/DC inverter to connect the 600V DC supercharger to the grid.
You don't lose much power due to winter snow because panels don't produce that much in winter to begin with. Look at Germany, average PV goes down to very low levels Dec - Feb. Many cloudy and snowy days it barely registers.
Clearing snow off panels is just part of it. If it is snowing hard during daylight hours, solar won't produce much even if the panels are cleared.
I got some hydro.. Shit is potent...
It's hard to address all the mistakes in your comment in one reply, so I'll just pick this one quote : "The cost of solar and wind power will always cost more than coal [...] because it takes more material and space to get the same output."
Recent Solar PV auctions in Dubai, India and Chile have produced costs for solar PV below the price of coal power. So the "always cost more" part of your argument is already wrong, today.
The levellised cost of solar, today (well, 2014, which is the latest figures I found on the public internet), is at the very bottom end of the cost of coal. See https://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf
The cost of solar PV panels has dropped steadily around 12% per year for the past 40 years, and there's no sign it will level off in the next 5 years, by which time solar pv will be cheaper than any coal station in areas with good solar insolation.
So your major claim is actually wrong today in some land areas, and will be comprehensively wrong in 5 years.
You claim "because it takes more [...] space to get the same output"
That only matters if the space is expensive. It turns out that the area required to supply all the USA electricity from Solar PV is around the same area that coal mining has ruined. http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/
And of course wind power allows other uses of land at the same time.
You claim "because it takes more material [...] to get the same output."
The material for solar pv only needs to be emplaced once. Wheareas coal mining continuous mining and delivery of coal, for ever.
Another way of looking at the cost of solar is what is the payback time : how much energy does solar produce compared to the cost of producing it? The energy payback time today is around 1.5 years. https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2016/12/8/musqo7036dslptm1b8efduj6i3e7ms
With solar panels expected to last at least 30 years, this means they have an energy multiplier of around 20 times.
Has it escaped your notice that producing coal involves heavy expensive machinery, expensive work underground, movement of huge areas of overburden, high risk of injury or death, expensive transport of heavy coal around the clock on roads or railways using expensive equipment and resources?
All of this costs money, which factors into the cost of coal power.
But your argument was about cost, and as shown above, it's not true that solar will never be cheaper than coal.
>>There are robotic cleaners for solar panels. They can easily get rid of snow:
There are also human cleaners for solar panels. They can easily get rid of snow:
aaaaaaa
>> I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward.
Nuclear is a waste.
aaaaaaa
I don't see the point of disconnecting SuperChargers from the grid.
In order to do that, you'd need both a lot of solar panels & lots of batteries.
Certainly doable for Tesla but at this time it's still quite expensive. While Tesla has started billing for SuperCharging, it's still in its early days and their promise for it to not be a profit center, means most of the funds will be used for expansion & upkeep.
Tesla needs to participate in the grid *more*, not less, to offset usage of less renewable / more polluting energy generation, to take advantage of low demand / high generation by consuming cheap power that would otherwise be dumped or curtailed, to use their solar installations & battery packs for ancillary grid services such as reactive power.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I wasn't aware that land with direct access to the Interstates could be had on the cheap.
Sure it can, it's just far away from any town. That's why truck stops are built at sleepy little exits where nobody lives. Land is cheap.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even the ones in Montreal? a meter of snow on the panel will be really efficient in winter.
Most humans live in warm climates. Canada as a whole has millions less citizens than California. Which, by the way, is where virtually all the Teslas are. Also, starting a comment in the subject is a dick move.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.
This is Slashdot, you know. As well, the coalition of shills and trolls have lost every battle on the alternative energy front, form coal to nuc to the minute nitpicking they are weakly attempting at present; somewhat reminiscent to the old god of the gaps argument, only weaker, and completely illogical.
As Los Angeles installs a battery powered peaking plant, forgoing even Natural gas, https://www.scientificamerican...
This is real, and it is happening.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is already a solved problem.
It is NOT a solved problem and as industrious as Americans are they cannot break the laws of physics.
The problem with batteries, flywheels, and such is that they use materials to produce. This means that they take up space, cost money, and must come from something.
And somehow the entire infrastructure of petrochemicals just miraculously happens, free of cost,, world without end amen.
But do go on, you are quite entertaining, I need more of the cold hard fact and laws of physics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
says "solar panel on the roof of every building" and then "no space needed" I dont think you understand what "Space" is buddy..
Whoosh!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I think nuclear is a great choice, both now and going forward.
In some cases, yes. I am pretty convinced that the days of humongous nuc plants are long gone, however. A simple matter of concentrating so much energy in a small space, and the fact that that energy wants out.
We've seen the results on occasion, and the pro nuc stance is that every accident is a special case, and everyone who isn't in favor of the humongous plants is an idiot.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If we can manage that Tesla will have no problem disconnecting most of its chargers from the grid.
It is difficult determining if the alternative power detractors are paid shills, useful idiots, or just desperately hanging on to strange nostalgia.
'Murrica is quite capable of making the switch. And we are doing it, no matter what the coal rollers think or how much they whine.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is just stupid environmental theater. Since electricity is fungible, there is no logical reason to co-locate solar panels and charging stations, other than winning brownie points from low IQ environmentalists that care more about symbolism than reality.
Oh yes there is a logical reason. That reason is to put it right in your face, along with all of the other solar and wind deniers. This technology has gone from it's humble beginnings to we have no need for you now.
The fact that you find it necessary to whine about something that you should not care one bit about shows exactly why they would want those non grid charging stations. Just one more part of the argument you are losing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problems with solar in cold snowy climates is very real. Insulting those that bring it up, and dismissing the facts doesn't change anything.
The fact is that Musk said "almost" all of the superchargers will be converted. The facts are not on your side.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can do better than that. Put them at service stations!
- Ready-laid power lines to supplement the solar when the days are short or the clouds are dense.
- Service stations would be more than happy to host a bank of solar chargers in their parking lot, because a lot of people are going to be stuck there for half an hour while their car does a fast-charge, which means captive customers with nothing to do other than shop and eat.
- Plus the service station gets free power whenever the solars are producing more than can be stored.
- And you get a consistent human presence nearby to aid in security (ie, stop people breaking in and stealing the cables and panels!) and to occasionally apply a broom to the panels after snow has fallen.
I can think of one reason: Power. Not energy, but power. Fast charging cars takes an insane amount of watts, and in some areas that is going to mean upgrading the grid if you want to provide it all at once. Cheaper to fit your charging station with a battery itsself so it can handle the surge load - and if you are doing that, the extra cost of putting some panels on the roof is negligable, and you can be sure that 100% of the energy produced can be utilised so the economics are favorable.
The Netherlands is about the same size and population as the greater Los Angeles area, about 8% of the area of just the State of California. The size and scale of the task is rather different. In the Netherlands, it's rare to go more than 30-40km and not encounter another town or city; in the US there are hundreds of stretches more than 250 km long with no towns or cities at all. It's a bit different, no?
I lived in Brussels for a few years, and thought nothing of jumping on my motorcycle and riding 400km to somewhere else. Most in Belgium thought I was insane, that was so far to go, but where I grew up in Seattle, the next biggest city outside of the Puget Sound area was 300km away. We regularly made those quick,3-4 hour trips because that was just normal.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't forget the few millions needed to grant access and build the on and off ramps as well... Those supercharger stations are going to be pretty pricey to install!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So if the roads are being cleared of snow for use, why not clear the solar panels too?
Have you ever seen what a snowplow does to mailboxes, let alone a solar panel?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Remove snow from roads, duh!
Remove snow from solar panels, impossible!
Ha!
Wrong. Solar is already cheaper than coal in sunny states without subsidies.
What was proposed was solar panels WITH batteries, flywheels, or other storage. This storage costs money on top of those solar panels. For solar to be as cheap as coal AND still be available 24/7 means that solar has to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than coal to make up for the costs of the storage. A tiny tiny fraction difference in price between solar and coal is insufficient to get people to switch because coal runs 24/7 in any weather, solar does not.
There's a reason coal isn't being built anymore and it's because it's uneconomical.
Coal is uneconomical because natural gas got real cheap, not because of solar, wind, or anything "green". If we don't keep replacing coal with something actually cheaper, like natural gas, then energy prices will increase. Trump has put some pro-nuclear people in his administration this might mean we'll start building more nuclear power plants at a rate close to what we did 40 or 50 years ago and we'll see energy get even cheaper.
You can claim that solar will get cheaper in time but that does not help me today. I want natural gas and nuclear. When or if solar with storage gets cheaper than natural gas, nuclear, and coal, then we can talk about switching over.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume.
The solar panels themselves may take no real space as it displaces the shingles we'd normally use but what of the inverters, batteries, and so on?
I did the math on converting my house to solar to make a point to a friend. I could in fact run my house on solar power by covering the roof in solar panels. This would require keeping my natural gas furnace and water heater, and maybe replacing my stove and dryer with natural gas too. In the summer I'd have enough extra capacity to charge up an electric hybrid vehicle for my daily commute but in the winter I'd have to fill it up with gasoline, diesel, or natural gas.
Then comes the space it'd take. I'd need two, three, or four large off the shelf inverters, depending largely on if I kept my large electric appliances or replaced them with gas. I computed for about a 48 hour reserve of electricity since a storm could block out the sun for a day, and I'm including the night before and after along with a safety reserve. This battery would be very large for my small house, something like 1 x 1 x 3 meters, if I recall correctly. It would weigh several tons. It would also make my cost of electricity roughly ten times what I pay now if I were to finance this over the expected life of the batteries, panels, and electronics.
Even if we were to get the price down to 1/10 of what I computed a couple years ago it would still take a lot of space. I'd have to dedicate the space equivalent to a small bedroom to the equipment, if we allow for room to do maintenance. If this is done on a utility scale then the batteries may not be in my basement but then they would have to be at a site built and maintained by the utility.
Sure, solar takes zero space if we ignore the electronics and storage needed to make it useful.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Elon Musk is not claiming that solar takes no space. He'll claim the space used is negligible, and it likely is with the expensive high density batteries he's using. He also freely admits that electric vehicles and solar power don't make sense in every case. Once in a while I'll check his math and roll my eyes at his claims but I don't know what he knows so I realize that he could be making an honest sale but I have my doubts.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I don't expect they will use a snowplough
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
From the info i can find solar panels work better in cooler temps and snow being highly reflective also helps it perform better than in the heat, hopefully enough to go some way to combat shorter daylight hours. There are also panels out there that can heat up when snow is detected. The major problem is lack of storage, once more people have battery storage at home, it'll become less of a problem for the networks. Its still early days and these issues will eventually be ironed out.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
We have indeed, however old plants. They get safer and more reliable for every generation, like using lead as a coolant instead of water.
Wind and sun are good sources of power but we need something to generate for us the days when wind and solar cant provide what we need. If you have god Rivers near bye waterplants are good for storing and realeasing energy but not every one have that luxuruy
So tell me AC, the next invention needs to be the storage battery? Seriously my good man, Los Angeles is shutting down a natural gas peaking plant for a Tesla battery system peaking plant. Maybe you should tell them it cannot be done?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
" If this is done on a utility scale then the batteries may not be in my basement but then they would have to be at a site built and maintained by the utility"
Or by companies that manufacture solar panels and / or energy storage - like Tesla.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The current size of the Tesla Powerwall batteries for the application you describe are about 1/100th the volume you describe, and less than 1/10th the weight you describe.
Also cheaper.
"I could have done this back in the '50s, but the cost would have been $1M per house, so that's proof it could never happen."
That's not the way it works. It sounds like your battery bank was a pile of 12V lead acid batteries, and your inverters were '50s tech.
Today's battery home takes zero floor space. The electronics and batteries are wall-mounted, taking up a little space on one wall of your garage. If you can't spare that, then you are lying. I've seen one-bedroom condos that have more than enough space for that. The absolute worst-case is to replace your water-heater with an on-demand unit, and in less than the space/weight of a typical water heater, you can put in a tankless, and all the electronics and batteries of a home solar kit.
Learn to love Alaska
I can afford the karma, can you afford the mod points?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The point is that they get so much less sun in winter that a small efficiency improvement is completely irrelevant.
Nope They are all self-sustaining without subsidies. The subisdies were created to incent investment. Given the success, they have. That subsidy is still less than 1% of what the fossil fuel industries get.
Learn to love Alaska
"I could have done this back in the '50s, but the cost would have been $1M per house, so that's proof it could never happen."
That's not what I said. I said it cannot be done TODAY and therefore, if we believe that CO2 emissions are an imminent problem, then we must do something else. Using solar power to replace coal TODAY cannot be done because it costs too much. The claim it takes no space is also nonsense. It might take minimal space but it does not take zero. We might see the day very soon that this makes economic sense but that day is not TODAY.
This is also using the energy demands of a typical home. Would this work for a iron recycling center? An aluminum refinery? A shipyard? Or even just a grocery store? How big of a battery pack would those take? Would the solar panels needed even fit on the same property? How would the costs compare to energy provided from coal, natural gas, or nuclear?
If we want to fix this problem as soon as possible then we'd be using nuclear power, not solar.
Also, think of the environmental implications. As it is now a typical business is surrounded with green space, at least that is the case around here. At a minimum you'd have a parking lot out in the sun with trees planted here and there. If we were using solar panels then the parking lots would be covered by solar panels, lit by artificial lighting and/or little windows in the collectors. No more grass and trees. It would be horribly depressing to live in a place like that.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It makes you sound like a liar, lying to push your political agenda.
Also, think of the environmental implications. As it is now a typical business is surrounded with green space, at least that is the case around here. At a minimum you'd have a parking lot out in the sun with trees planted here and there. If we were using solar panels then the parking lots would be covered by solar panels, lit by artificial lighting and/or little windows in the collectors. No more grass and trees. It would be horribly depressing to live in a place like that.
Why can you only think of the worst possible, and quite impractical solution? Are you really dumber than a rock, or are you a liar? Since you've already lied, claiming that your multi-ton lead battery system was a modern system, I can only assume you are an anti-environmental nutcase.
If every home had a solar roof, it'd take out no trees, have no visible panels, and provide more power than needed for the sum of residential applications (would cover home and light commercial use). Problem solved, for every one except industrial applications, where they are buying wind and hydro, or having those solar farms you find so unsighly.
Learn to love Alaska
Sun can shine through small amounts of snow. So this is a problem for only when the snow cover is thick. For that there's wind and also panels are slippery so snow tends to slide off of them before long. These things are especially true for the panels that don't have raised edges. Then there's the last resort of hiring people to clear them, but I doubt it's worth it considering how they tend to be cleared naturally before too long.
Interestingly, snow sitting around the panels, if the panels are clear, can cause the panels to produce more electricity since the surrounding snow reflects more light toward the panels.
So tell me AC, the next invention needs to be the storage battery? Seriously my good man, Los Angeles is shutting down a natural gas peaking plant for a Tesla battery system peaking plant. Maybe you should tell them it cannot be done?
They are not doing this by choice. Besides state law mandating installation of energy storage, they had that massive natural gas storage accident not long ago so they will not be able to fuel some of their natural gas peaking plants anyway.
IF it cannot be done today, why are you quoting a system worse than the Tesla Powerwall 2 system?
To show that it is impractical and at the time (two or three years ago) that was a top of the line system. As of TODAY the Tesla Powerwall is not widely available and not much better than what I quoted. It doesn't take much to find people that have done the math on the Powerwall and found it to be only a means to allow rich people to show how much better they are than their neighbors.
Since you've already lied, claiming that your multi-ton lead battery system was a modern system, I can only assume you are an anti-environmental nutcase.
Who's the nutcase? I did not lie, I made an honest attempt to find the actual cost of a home solar power system. I found that it costs many times more than electricity from the utility, we can argue if it means a ten times increase in cost or a doubling in cost but either way this is just an indulgence for the wealthy. I also found that it is only practical if one allows for the use of natural gas heating and cooking in winter, at least for where I live. Some places north of me will not be able to even get that far with the costs I computed. The nutcases are those that think we can transition to solar power TODAY and wish to use the power of the government to force people onto a technology that will drive them into poverty.
Problem solved, for every one except industrial applications, where they are buying wind and hydro, or having those solar farms you find so unsighly.
In other words the problem is not solved. You just admitted to it. To make this work we'd have to cover over large chunks of land with windmills and solar panels to power our industry. This is very different than just covering rooftops. These solar farms would be displacing people, wildlife, and/or crops. Windmills displace crops, people, and wildlife too though perhaps not as bad. Hydro is great but there is no growth in that, we've already dammed up all the rivers worth a dam.
You know what would solve the problem TODAY? Nuclear power. I've done that math also and the only reason it's not being deployed widely is politics. If we regulated coal like we did nuclear power then we'd stop using coal for the radiation it releases. If we regulated nuclear like we did coal then we'd be building a new nuclear power plant in the USA every month, because it's "green", cheap, plentiful, and safe. It's cheaper, cleaner, safer, and more reliable than solar.
If you want to call me a liar then show where I lied. It's real easy to look on the internet and see that solar kills more people per megawatt-hour produced compared to nuclear. It's easy to see that nuclear power produced less CO2 than solar per megawatt-hour produced. I'm not the nutcase that fears nuclear power more than climate change. If you fear nuclear power more than climate change then climate change must not be much of a threat.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The nutcases are those that think we can transition to solar power TODAY and wish to use the power of the government to force people onto a technology that will drive them into poverty.
We require houses be built to minimum safety standards. Why not minimum sustainable standards? $10,000 on the cost of a $400,000 home doesn't look to be pushing anyone into poverty.
Learn to love Alaska
We require houses be built to minimum safety standards. Why not minimum sustainable standards? $10,000 on the cost of a $400,000 home doesn't look to be pushing anyone into poverty.
Because it doesn't cost $10,000 for a $400,000 home. That might cover the cost of the batteries, maybe, but the solar panels will cost even more. When I did my calculations I found it would cost as much as the home for all the solar panels and electronics. If we compare the costs for a loan this large to the typical electric bill then it came to a ten times increase in the cost of electricity. Let's assume my calculations were way off and it's just a doubling, then we see what we have in Germany of "energy poverty" where people cannot pay their electric bills any more.
Where does this stop? If we keep putting regulations on people that cost so little that it can't "push anyone into poverty" then at some point it will. That money has to come from somewhere. Let's assume that people can in fact afford the electric bill increase from solar power, that just means less money for something else, like health care and education. In the short term this means next to nothing but over even a decade this can be a serious drag on a family and a nation.
We don't have to choose between expensive sustainable energy and cheap dirty coal. We can have nuclear. Nuclear is the safest and greenest energy source we know of today. It's as cheap as coal so long as the protesting nut jobs don't go around tossing firebombs and chaining themselves to bulldozers. This costs money. If these people are dumping sugar in the concrete mixers, pissing in fuel tanks, knocking over safety barriers, and so on then they are going to cost even more money.
There is a part of me that wants to just let them chain themselves to the bulldozers and then the operator go drive on anyway and let the punks that do this get torn in half as the dozer moves on. If they jump in the path of the pouring of the concrete then work will not stop and they will be buried there. I recall something somewhere on horse blood was used to make mortar stronger. I say we try using the blood of these jackasses that get in the way of nuclear power plant construction to build the plant.
This protesting can only go so far before someone fights back. The lunatics that try to hold up the nuclear power with their heckler's veto once construction starts might find themselves in an "accident". Looking at polling for nuclear power and I find two kinds of results, a 50/50 result where just as many oppose as support, the other is some more definitive showing of support. A bunch of protesters going on a nuclear power plant construction site and getting killed in the act can be spun by the powers that be. They can talk about how the people were warned not to go out where the dozers were operating. They'll talk about how this is why energy prices are so high, needing security and insurance for these knuckleheads.
Think about how this goes over for the public. People just want to live their lives and one side says we need to double out electricity prices, protest the cheap nuclear power, and everyone will have to add a government mandated solar panel and battery pack to their house. The other side offers cheap nuclear power but the only reason it's not cheap and operating now is because of the protesters.
I listen to these anti-nuke people and they are often screaming lunatics, thinking that if they only chant loud enough that people will agree with them. The nuclear people are much more polite, reasonable, and charismatic. The calmer ones will often talk and try to convince people with logic but the logic does not work in their favor.
If you want to sell me on solar then don't tell me it costs only a "little bit" more than coal and nuclear". You need to show me it is actually cheaper and greener. We've already seen windmills fail on being "green" for producing power when no one wants it (which brings negative pricing) an
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you want to sell me on solar then don't tell me it costs only a "little bit" more than coal and nuclear".
Ah, there's the problem. You live a lie. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I never compared solar to coal or nuclear. You see anyone that doesn't agree with you as "the enemy" and you attack, without even reading what's written. Go get some professional help, and come back when your mental illness is under control.
Learn to love Alaska
I never compared solar to coal or nuclear.
Is this not your post?
Sure, coal is cleaner than solar. There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume. Yes, it is that easy, absolutely zero space needed. As for the materials, they are common and cheaper than the pro-coal-religion nutjobs claim (yes, the pro-coal nutjobs are a religion, as it's a belief held in opposition of logic and evidence)..
Seems to me you did in fact compare solar to coal.
Let's assume I am reading this incorrectly (as I'm sure you will claim) then how do you expect people to switch to solar if it is not cheaper than coal? You want to have them jailed for burning coal? Fined into poverty if they use coal instead of solar? Then what you propose is the tyranny behind the "green" movement. They can't compete on price and/or convince people with words so they turn to the government to force it on people. You be a good little watermelon and keep talking about how solar power is going to "save" us.
Another thing, you claimed that if we had rooftop solar that we would not have to sacrifice any trees. Do you not have shade trees where you live? Have you not seen them or heard them discussed before? Seems to me that in many parts of the world people plant shade trees near their homes, or build their homes under existing trees, to protect them from the sun. An easy way to save on some air conditioning. With roof top solar we can't do that any more.
Trees and solar panels are not compatible with each other.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It would help a LOT if the govt. would stop caving to electricity generating companies, and instead paying people a going market rate for the excess electricity. That would be incentive for people to install larger systems which would help the environment, sustainability, etc. Once again the corporate corruption of government hurts most of us. Hopefully We the People will find a way to unify and get our governments to listen and do what we want and need.
Just so that we're clear, there is only a market here if the government demands it. Otherwise there is nothing restricting you from pushing your power to the grid and making a deal with a power company.
In other words, it's not the government getting out of the way that you want, it's the government getting involved on your side.
Seems to me you did in fact compare solar to coal.
"Sure, coal is cleaner than solar." A sarcastic parroting of your statement isn't a comparison. Yes, I mentioned "coal" and "solar" in the same sentence. What is the comparison I drew between them?
Another thing, you claimed that if we had rooftop solar that we would not have to sacrifice any trees. Do you not have shade trees where you live? Have you not seen them or heard them discussed before? Seems to me that in many parts of the world people plant shade trees near their homes, or build their homes under existing trees, to protect them from the sun. An easy way to save on some air conditioning. With roof top solar we can't do that any more.
The reason they are a discussion point is that most houses don't have them. Yes, there are areas where they are common, but the areas that need them most are often too dry and hot for the trees to do well as shade trees.
Again, you look to be looking for reasons for solar to fail. As if you have a religion of "hate solar".
Trees and solar work fine together. Just don't put the tree between the solar and the sun.
Learn to love Alaska
Again, you look to be looking for reasons for solar to fail. As if you have a religion of "hate solar".
I'm not looking for reasons for solar to fail, I simply did a pro/con of all energy sources available and I found that solar simply cannot compete with nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and wind when it comes to price, availability, and carbon footprint. I have nothing against coal really, since I think skyrocketing energy prices are a greater threat to civilization than any global warming it may cause but if we assume that coal is "bad" then a mix of nuclear, natural gas, hydro, and some wind will mean lowered energy prices (cheaper than coal in the long run) and unlimited energy. Solar only adds to the problem.
Solar only makes sense for communication satellites and pocket calculators and I'm not even sure about those any more. Any leaps in solar technology may change this. What will not change this is advancements in battery technology. Those batteries don't care if they are charged up by wind or excess nuclear capacity.
Just don't put the tree between the solar and the sun.
That's just another way to say they are incompatible.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That's just another way to say they are incompatible.
No, it's not. How many trees shade the roof of a structure in NYC? Not many. That's true of most places. Yes, the suburbs have trees, but that's not where most houses are. That's not where most people live. You are taking the worst-case, and advancing it as the average case. That just demonstrates an irrational bias. Why do you hate solar so? For $5k I could go solar off-grid (with equipment that'd take up zero living space). That's cheaper and better for the environment than any other options. And it doesn't include any subsidies.
Learn to love Alaska
And yes, I know that most of the nuclear cost is regulatory.
Regulatory costs can be voted away in law, physical material costs cannot. Therefore solar is not cheaper than nuclear. You contradict your own claims every time.
Keep going though, this is fun.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.