Seems odd however tht the device is designed to fail at the time it is needed most.
Firstly, you have a misconception: residential grid-tied systems are not intended to be backup systems. When it is most needed is in the afternoon, on a hot, sunny day, so that it can offset the electricity used by my, or my neighbours' AC systems.
What exactly fails that stops the power? I have a shutoff system for my emergency generator.
Nothing fails. The inverter is configured to shut off the system in the absence of grid power. This is the intended behaviour, not a failure mode.
I don't know if the wiring and connection code would allow for a solar system that, instead of shutting down, disconnected the house from the grid and continued operation, but I suspect that this would add significant cost to the solar installation.
You can add a transfer switch if you want to be grid connected, but it's all or nothing.
I think that if you connect your solar system to the grid, you need permits. These permits require that your system will not operate without grid power. I expect the inverter settings control whether grid power is required or not.
As well, there are the incalculables. Access to the electricity. We have a lot of power outages in my area. And with the whacked weather, we are sometimes out for a while - one time almost a week. Your own power source can make life a lot nicer. It was nice to have lights and furnace that week. Note I wasn't using solar that week, just another power source.
Most, if not all grid-tied solar systems require that the grid is actually working. So if you get a power outage, your solar panels won't help you.
I have wondered if you could get the solar inverter to start producing electricity by disconnecting from the grid and connecting a generator (or even a large UPS) to the house wiring.
If that were true, then we would be phasing out the subsidies as they'd no longer be needed. What in fact has happened is that Deepwater is receiving a special-case subsidy that is much higher than the already existing subsidies.
If the NIMBYs acting in coordination with the Koch brothers would allow really large wind farms to be built, they would be much more economical. As I stated above, this project is too small. Both the size and number of turbines is too small. Scale is important to make wind farms cost effective.
As mentioned by another poster above, coal gets a lots of direct and indirect subsidies.
Finally, what's your proposal? We know that we can't continue burning coal, oil and gas forever. We need alternative sources of energy, because the long term costs of fossil fuels are much higher.
So run along and got get your pay from the Koch brothers. You made your post.
The core of the argument is sound though. It costs ~$500k to put up a 100kW wind turbine.
No, it's not sound. It's historical.
Turbines being installed now are much larger: 6 - 8MW. The economics of these much larger, offshore turbines are very different to those of the old, small turbines. The largest offshore wind farms that are being installed now are close to the cheapest sources of electricity.
Time to market, and cost. If your switch costs twice as much as someone else's, guess which most consumers will buy?
Also, the well has already been poisoned. Even if you pay twice as much, it isn't likely that you will get something that is significantly more secure.
Even if you could, how do you know that you are getting more security for your additional dollars?
Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didnâ(TM)t work.
You are wrong. It worked. The subsidies have brought down the costs of installing wind power to the point that it is becoming competitive with (and perhaps cheaper than) other forms of generation.
These 6MW turbines are actually small. 8MW turbines are being installed now. The effective cost will be higher because only a small number of turbines are being installed.
If you want to do things like say electricity demand is low at night, then you have to start figuring factors that you will be running peak dispatchable power instead of lower cost baseline power
Why dispatchable power? Surely, EV charging is one of the most predictable forms of demand, and, with the majority done at night, will slowly increase the baseline (as the number of EV miles increases).
The effect should actually be to reduce the difference between baseline and peak, reducing the overall need for dispatchable power.
Even assuming the battery lasts twice as long, it's still going to be more than 7 or 8 years before you start seeing a cost savings. Some people don't even own any single car for that long
You don't have to own the car for that long for the payback. The prospect of payback over time should increase its resale value.
I live in California and the main payback that I get from my Leaf is time that I don't have to spend waiting to get on the freeway, because I can use the carpool lane.
I never claimed that my situation applied to everyone. I have been very consistent in stating that it takes *me* almost none of my time to keep my EV charged.
Also, where I live, public charging stations are common. Even if I did not have a home charger, keeping the car charged is easy for me.
I suspect that the reason that GP thinks that charging stations are not available is that GP poster has simply not looked for charging stations.
As for the claim about infrastructure: did neither you, nor GP ever consider that most of the infrastructure for EV charging already exists: it's called the electrical grid.
You really are not getting the point. Stating it takes you less time to charge in the context of day to day is stupid.
Comparing the amount of my time it takes to keep my car charged on a typical day to the amount of my time it would take to keep a gas powered car fuelled is stupid?
I guess that your time is worthless, so you don't count it.
An example would be a trip greater than your ev range. In a car you are at a gas station for 10 minutes and done. In an EV at best you are at 2 hours
1. We can use my wife's car.
2. A fast charge is only 30 minutes, not 2 hours.
A lot of people commute 80+ miles per day. The avg is 70 to 120 miles for suburbanites.
The lack of engine noise definitely reduced my daily commute stress.
Oh yes. I feel that I am driving a very luxurious car, so quiet and smooth.
- Way better USABLE acceleration means I can easily change lanes anytime
Again, this! Even in a Leaf (which is not fast), when I first got mine, several times, I almost hit the car in front when changing lanes, because I would hit the accelerator and the car would respond so much faster than I was expecting.
So, with the difference in price between a Leaf and a typical compact sedan being on the order of about $15K, that means it would take about 15 years for the initial expenditure on a Nissan Leaf to pay for itself in terms of gasoline saved by not driving an otherwise comparable ICE vehicle.
Did the federal and state subsidies magically disappear? A financial comparison that ignores subsidies of over 30% of the price (In CA, Federal plus state subsidies) is completely worthless.
And I did not even start on the savings I get in toll lanes which are free or cheaper because my EV is eligible to use carpool lanes.
Oh, and I forgot another advantage: many retail locations have EV chargers that are close to the front door: closer than any other parking except the disabled parking. So I can find a very close in parking slot, plug in and charge (possibly at no cost) while shopping.
I am not sure about that, it takes me 3 minutes to fill my truck with 30 gallons about once a month,
I would be willing to bet that when you count the time it takes you to drive to a gas station (even if it on your route, it still takes some time to get in an out of the station), possibly wait for a free pump, swipe your credit card to start the pump, remove the gas cap and insert the filler handle, wait for it to fill, remove the filler handle, close out the credit card transaction and start up again, you have spent much more than 3 minutes. And when did 3 minutes become 90 seconds?
600 miles is only 10 plugins for me: I typically go 60 miles between charges.
So the comparison is 180 seconds (using your unlikely 3 minutes) divided by 10. 18 seconds to plug in and out?
Since significant time of the year, I park on the street, it would take me about as much time to run a cord out to the car and back every day as a full fill up.
OK, I am not going to claim that everyone can use an EV. However, it's probably a lot more practical than you realize. Around here, a lot of employers provide free charging stations, so even if a home charger isn't practical, many people have a very practical (and cheap) alternative.
forgot something for dinner, but the commute almost burns the charge. well those 15 mins of charge time is gonna be useless.
How often do you arrive home with an empty tank? Well, I don't arrive home with almost no charge.
Yes, an EV does take a little more planning, but in an emergency, I can get an almost full charge in 30 minutes. If I get caught out like this a few times a year, I still spend less time waiting for my car to charge than you spend filling your car with gas.
Why are you so dumb that you think I have to spend any time waiting for my car to charge?
As someone else explained, how often do you think you would need to fill up a car if you left your house with a full tank every morning?
How dumb are you that you think that the time you spend charging an EV and the time you spend filling a car are comparable, when the EV can be charged overnight at home, or at work, while you are in your office?
but how far can you drive on a 10 minute charge. im pretty sure the person spending 10 minutes to fill a tank can go 2 or 3x's the distance you can on a full nights charge.
In a few seconds of my time, I can charge my Leaf sufficiently for my next two days' needs. That's all that matters.
Only very occasionally do I need to travel more distance than provided by an overnight charge. I can also charge at work. Again, very little of my time is spent charging.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, you have a misconception: residential grid-tied systems are not intended to be backup systems. When it is most needed is in the afternoon, on a hot, sunny day, so that it can offset the electricity used by my, or my neighbours' AC systems.
Nothing fails. The inverter is configured to shut off the system in the absence of grid power. This is the intended behaviour, not a failure mode.
I don't know if the wiring and connection code would allow for a solar system that, instead of shutting down, disconnected the house from the grid and continued operation, but I suspect that this would add significant cost to the solar installation.
I think that if you connect your solar system to the grid, you need permits. These permits require that your system will not operate without grid power. I expect the inverter settings control whether grid power is required or not.
There is lots of solar being installed in the UK, which is further north.
Most, if not all grid-tied solar systems require that the grid is actually working. So if you get a power outage, your solar panels won't help you.
I have wondered if you could get the solar inverter to start producing electricity by disconnecting from the grid and connecting a generator (or even a large UPS) to the house wiring.
That's true. But the newer, much larger turbines don't kill as many birds as the smaller ones.
If the NIMBYs acting in coordination with the Koch brothers would allow really large wind farms to be built, they would be much more economical. As I stated above, this project is too small. Both the size and number of turbines is too small. Scale is important to make wind farms cost effective.
As mentioned by another poster above, coal gets a lots of direct and indirect subsidies.
Finally, what's your proposal? We know that we can't continue burning coal, oil and gas forever. We need alternative sources of energy, because the long term costs of fossil fuels are much higher.
So run along and got get your pay from the Koch brothers. You made your post.
No, it's not sound. It's historical.
Turbines being installed now are much larger: 6 - 8MW. The economics of these much larger, offshore turbines are very different to those of the old, small turbines. The largest offshore wind farms that are being installed now are close to the cheapest sources of electricity.
Also, the well has already been poisoned. Even if you pay twice as much, it isn't likely that you will get something that is significantly more secure.
Even if you could, how do you know that you are getting more security for your additional dollars?
You are wrong. It worked. The subsidies have brought down the costs of installing wind power to the point that it is becoming competitive with (and perhaps cheaper than) other forms of generation.
These 6MW turbines are actually small. 8MW turbines are being installed now. The effective cost will be higher because only a small number of turbines are being installed.
This is a recent article from someone who has been very skeptical about alternative energy
In general, reducing the difference between peak and baseline should improve costs. It's cheaper to add and run baseline generation capacity.
Also, none of this has any impact on your claim that the whole of the additional demand from EVs needs will impact peak demand.
Why dispatchable power? Surely, EV charging is one of the most predictable forms of demand, and, with the majority done at night, will slowly increase the baseline (as the number of EV miles increases).
The effect should actually be to reduce the difference between baseline and peak, reducing the overall need for dispatchable power.
Except that most EV charging is done at times of minimal electricity demand: at night. So no, the effect on max capacity requirement isn't large.
You don't have to own the car for that long for the payback. The prospect of payback over time should increase its resale value.
I live in California and the main payback that I get from my Leaf is time that I don't have to spend waiting to get on the freeway, because I can use the carpool lane.
Perhaps if you live in Arizona, otherwise, it's unlikely to need a new battery that often. Nissan changed its battery chemistry in 2015 to improve battery life in hot climates.
Basically, you have been taken in by the fossil fuel industry's bogeyman. There is lots of evidence of very long battery lives on Teslas.
Go fuck yourself.
I never claimed that my situation applied to everyone. I have been very consistent in stating that it takes *me* almost none of my time to keep my EV charged.
Also, where I live, public charging stations are common. Even if I did not have a home charger, keeping the car charged is easy for me.
I suspect that the reason that GP thinks that charging stations are not available is that GP poster has simply not looked for charging stations.
As for the claim about infrastructure: did neither you, nor GP ever consider that most of the infrastructure for EV charging already exists: it's called the electrical grid.
No, you are missing the point:
1. For a typical commute a 110V charger will keep an EV charged.
2. You can get chargers that plug into 220V dryer outlets.
3. I have a dedicated 7kW charger at my house, so it isn't an issue for me.
4. Like most people, I have access to chargers at my place of work. I could charge during the day, instead of overnight.
The point is that there are lots of options for EV drivers that are convenient to use.
Comparing the amount of my time it takes to keep my car charged on a typical day to the amount of my time it would take to keep a gas powered car fuelled is stupid?
I guess that your time is worthless, so you don't count it.
1. We can use my wife's car.
2. A fast charge is only 30 minutes, not 2 hours.
Well if your opinion is based on falsehoods, there isn't much hope for you.
Oh yes. I feel that I am driving a very luxurious car, so quiet and smooth.
Again, this! Even in a Leaf (which is not fast), when I first got mine, several times, I almost hit the car in front when changing lanes, because I would hit the accelerator and the car would respond so much faster than I was expecting.
It's cheaper to buy used? Never! That's such a revelation to me. I never would have thought of that!!
Meanwhile: film at 11.
Did you price up a used EV?
Did the federal and state subsidies magically disappear? A financial comparison that ignores subsidies of over 30% of the price (In CA, Federal plus state subsidies) is completely worthless.
And I did not even start on the savings I get in toll lanes which are free or cheaper because my EV is eligible to use carpool lanes.
Oh, and I forgot another advantage: many retail locations have EV chargers that are close to the front door: closer than any other parking except the disabled parking. So I can find a very close in parking slot, plug in and charge (possibly at no cost) while shopping.
I would be willing to bet that when you count the time it takes you to drive to a gas station (even if it on your route, it still takes some time to get in an out of the station), possibly wait for a free pump, swipe your credit card to start the pump, remove the gas cap and insert the filler handle, wait for it to fill, remove the filler handle, close out the credit card transaction and start up again, you have spent much more than 3 minutes. And when did 3 minutes become 90 seconds?
600 miles is only 10 plugins for me: I typically go 60 miles between charges.
So the comparison is 180 seconds (using your unlikely 3 minutes) divided by 10. 18 seconds to plug in and out?
OK, I am not going to claim that everyone can use an EV. However, it's probably a lot more practical than you realize. Around here, a lot of employers provide free charging stations, so even if a home charger isn't practical, many people have a very practical (and cheap) alternative.
How often do you arrive home with an empty tank? Well, I don't arrive home with almost no charge.
Yes, an EV does take a little more planning, but in an emergency, I can get an almost full charge in 30 minutes. If I get caught out like this a few times a year, I still spend less time waiting for my car to charge than you spend filling your car with gas.
Why are you so dumb that you think I have to spend any time waiting for my car to charge?
As someone else explained, how often do you think you would need to fill up a car if you left your house with a full tank every morning?
How dumb are you that you think that the time you spend charging an EV and the time you spend filling a car are comparable, when the EV can be charged overnight at home, or at work, while you are in your office?
In a few seconds of my time, I can charge my Leaf sufficiently for my next two days' needs. That's all that matters.
Only very occasionally do I need to travel more distance than provided by an overnight charge. I can also charge at work. Again, very little of my time is spent charging.