Do you have a link that points to this analysis in residential housing? I calculated I could wire my house (9 rooms) with 0.5% loss for $60 bucks at a very sloppy 200 ft in 14g wire.
PV is not expensive. PV capital equipment costs 0.04-0.05 $/kWh over its (conservative) lifetime. Lowest in the industry soft costs can put PV on your roof at about 0.09-0.11 $/kWh under average solar insolation, which is extremely competitive to retail grid rates all over the country, which are usually cited without mentioning their accompanying ~11-14% taxes and 1.6-20% fixed fees. Equipment is cheap, installation can be cheap, and presently the cost of PV is most sensitive to the cost of capital. PV is generally cashflow positive based on HELOC rates. aka, it is a positive investment from day 1 for residential owners of good credit standing, and probably an excellent diversification investment for middle class - upper middle class families). Already some large firms (SunEdison) (SolarCity) and numerous foreign project developers have been successful in getting access to capital at rates (and of similar scope) as existing utilities. And their PV is cheap. Billions of dollars is flowing into solar financing, especially in regions where it isn't heavy political competition with the inertia of existing infrastructure.
Thus one alternative answer may be "one true energy" if enabled by very cheap storage and extreme energy efficiency. Diurnally cycling 100 $/kWh storage, 10 $/kWh weekly and 1 $/kWh seasonal storage solves most problems of one true energy, especially paired with 40-60-80% deep energy retrofits. Compared to today, it is likely that advanced battery technology will absolutely crush the payback of next major round of expansion or replacement of major transmission and generation systems. Radical changes will be possible due to competitive technology and economics. Whether they are realized is another point. The modular nature of PV and advanced battery systems are doomsday for the centralized grid because economies of scale have already been realized. Equipment costs of PV reached the magic number almost 2 years ago and roadmaps, which have thus far been conservative, suggest significantly (30%+) improvements in the immediate (5yr) pipeline. Neglecting some of the finer details it is the cheapest equipment under most scenarios. I suspect rather draconian government intervention will allow some type of "free" market compromise to prevent the eradication of existing models.
That plant is a great example. Lets talk about the project schedule and costs. We're at 200% construction time ant 300% budget? ~4x cost of solar and 20x construction time. Nice.
AFIK, they already have passed them up. It is unfortunate that $300 can buy you integrated solar collector/storage in China and you would be lucky to get a comparable system for 10x that price here.
Solar thermal is awesome, but limited and it is not or likely to be a viable solution for cooling. You get a COPc of 0.6 to 0.8 out of a sorption chiller powered by 160F hot water. That is 5 to 10 times less than than the SEER 13+ AC running on your 30A breaker; aka your 3kW cooling demand becomes 15+kW when accounting for the inefficient sorption cycle. Also that absorption chiller is expensive and has no where near the reliability of a sealed electric compressor.
There is no utility for 60,000 BTU/hr of 160F water in residential housing.
insulation and efficient, climate appropriate glazing would obviate the need for most of those collectors, and all of them without significant (~weekly) thermal storage
PV + AC/HP = more efficient
PV + AC/HP = cheaper
PV = more flexible and useful
PV = grid connected
Even if you aren't compensated for putting power back on the grid at least that power can be used! You fail to mention how much of that solar thermal energy would simply be wasted (shoulder seasons, summer overheating) because you have no use for it. Without a gigantic seasonal (and expensive) thermal storage you would probably throw away the majority of your collected energy, which would significantly diminish operating efficiency.
A last note on Stirling technology. While capable of extremely impressive feats with a dT of 600C, it's useless without high temperatures, aka large concentrating systems. There can not compete with PV in cost or efficiency at non-concentrating solar thermal temperatures.
really? your thesis relies on 100 years of stagnant technology and manufacturing. you lose big time. +cute points for thinking the initial failure was free market dynamics.
LCOE solar is cheaper than coal and non-fracked natural gasin Reno, NV. It will also be cheaper than natural gas when that is fairly regulated. besides, the different can always be made up with peaking natural gas plants, just as we do now since you know, and this may be a shocker to you, 1) demand curve changes by a factor of 2 and 2) capacity factor on base load fossil fuel plants is less than 100%.
that is what leaders do; they loudly attract support usually in incredibly primitive [yet effective] ways. being a leader has nothing to do with being intelligent; we aren't going to follow the meekly supported brilliant plan of a introverted super nerd unless advanced by his belligerent screaming champion. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It takes all types.
I think if he paid taxes on the gift it is perfectly legal in the US. I question your cousin's business acumen. As an investor signed off on the conversion of his equity stake in the company into a useless depreciating asset.
the real point here is that your brain is so hard-wired by age that you cannot embrace the change or dynamism that drive human progress. it is time to wander off into the woods. alternatively accept that your opinions and thinking are outmoded and allow yourself to be reduced to some menial skill set until such time you can wander off into the woods.
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)
On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.
"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.
One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?
I think you'll get off to a better start if you think of people as individuals. I doubt you enjoy being assigned to some monolithic dehumanized collective.
Save money? Insulate your quality of life from changes in the global energy landscape? Minimize waste? Self Improvement? Let us set aside "saving the world," thus all the criticism of that goal and focus on a lot of other compelling reasons to use your resources wisely. Are there really any compelling arguments against it?
I'm in favor of conservation and I don't believe that. I don't understand the point of your dichotomy when there exists many options between your two extremes.
One alternative is to realize that a reduction of one's energy footprint on the order of 20-40% can be made simply from awareness and intelligent choices requiring no compromise. I would argue that many of the easy big drivers of conservation improve quality of life and increase happiness. Beyond that change may be required. “Change” may be undesirable, reduce quality of life, or simply ill-informed perception.
A compelling driving force is the economic incentive, which is particularly attractive with a good scheme, e.g. pipe energy savings directly into non-taxable retirement accounts. Additional strategies enable insulation from future energy costs, or even directly hedging changes in future energy costs.
“Saving” becomes a fundamental exercise in efficiency, which should appeal to many types. It is a fundamental exercise in character, which should appeal to other types. It can be competitive, rewarding, challenging, and fun, which should appeal to even more types. It exercises the mind, satisfies curiosity, engages critical faculties, and requires learning and understanding about our connection and place in the world.
I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against applied wisdom or trying one's best. But I’m always open to it.
30% savings by waiting 2 years? dunno. It hardly would have mattered in the grand scheme of the life of the vehicle except for the minor detail you would also now have approximately the purchase price of that car sitting in an index fund investment account.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a link that points to this analysis in residential housing? I calculated I could wire my house (9 rooms) with 0.5% loss for $60 bucks at a very sloppy 200 ft in 14g wire.
PV is not expensive. PV capital equipment costs 0.04-0.05 $/kWh over its (conservative) lifetime. Lowest in the industry soft costs can put PV on your roof at about 0.09-0.11 $/kWh under average solar insolation, which is extremely competitive to retail grid rates all over the country, which are usually cited without mentioning their accompanying ~11-14% taxes and 1.6-20% fixed fees. Equipment is cheap, installation can be cheap, and presently the cost of PV is most sensitive to the cost of capital. PV is generally cashflow positive based on HELOC rates. aka, it is a positive investment from day 1 for residential owners of good credit standing, and probably an excellent diversification investment for middle class - upper middle class families). Already some large firms (SunEdison) (SolarCity) and numerous foreign project developers have been successful in getting access to capital at rates (and of similar scope) as existing utilities. And their PV is cheap. Billions of dollars is flowing into solar financing, especially in regions where it isn't heavy political competition with the inertia of existing infrastructure. Thus one alternative answer may be "one true energy" if enabled by very cheap storage and extreme energy efficiency. Diurnally cycling 100 $/kWh storage, 10 $/kWh weekly and 1 $/kWh seasonal storage solves most problems of one true energy, especially paired with 40-60-80% deep energy retrofits. Compared to today, it is likely that advanced battery technology will absolutely crush the payback of next major round of expansion or replacement of major transmission and generation systems. Radical changes will be possible due to competitive technology and economics. Whether they are realized is another point. The modular nature of PV and advanced battery systems are doomsday for the centralized grid because economies of scale have already been realized. Equipment costs of PV reached the magic number almost 2 years ago and roadmaps, which have thus far been conservative, suggest significantly (30%+) improvements in the immediate (5yr) pipeline. Neglecting some of the finer details it is the cheapest equipment under most scenarios. I suspect rather draconian government intervention will allow some type of "free" market compromise to prevent the eradication of existing models.
That plant is a great example. Lets talk about the project schedule and costs. We're at 200% construction time ant 300% budget? ~4x cost of solar and 20x construction time. Nice.
AFIK, they already have passed them up. It is unfortunate that $300 can buy you integrated solar collector/storage in China and you would be lucky to get a comparable system for 10x that price here.
Solar thermal is awesome, but limited and it is not or likely to be a viable solution for cooling. You get a COPc of 0.6 to 0.8 out of a sorption chiller powered by 160F hot water. That is 5 to 10 times less than than the SEER 13+ AC running on your 30A breaker; aka your 3kW cooling demand becomes 15+kW when accounting for the inefficient sorption cycle. Also that absorption chiller is expensive and has no where near the reliability of a sealed electric compressor.
There is no utility for 60,000 BTU/hr of 160F water in residential housing.
insulation and efficient, climate appropriate glazing would obviate the need for most of those collectors, and all of them without significant (~weekly) thermal storage
PV + AC/HP = more efficient
PV + AC/HP = cheaper
PV = more flexible and useful
PV = grid connected Even if you aren't compensated for putting power back on the grid at least that power can be used! You fail to mention how much of that solar thermal energy would simply be wasted (shoulder seasons, summer overheating) because you have no use for it. Without a gigantic seasonal (and expensive) thermal storage you would probably throw away the majority of your collected energy, which would significantly diminish operating efficiency.
A last note on Stirling technology. While capable of extremely impressive feats with a dT of 600C, it's useless without high temperatures, aka large concentrating systems. There can not compete with PV in cost or efficiency at non-concentrating solar thermal temperatures.
isis is a regional problem. "the world" and america in particular face no terror threat from isis.
yes, take your civc, but not for the reason you imply. for the reason that you are a complete imbecile.
not true. this has been planned for over a year. in fact it is several months late.
really? your thesis relies on 100 years of stagnant technology and manufacturing. you lose big time. +cute points for thinking the initial failure was free market dynamics.
LCOE solar is cheaper than coal and non-fracked natural gasin Reno, NV. It will also be cheaper than natural gas when that is fairly regulated. besides, the different can always be made up with peaking natural gas plants, just as we do now since you know, and this may be a shocker to you, 1) demand curve changes by a factor of 2 and 2) capacity factor on base load fossil fuel plants is less than 100%.
everyone is a nuclear power expert on slashdot.
circadian rhythm. we are not nocturnal. your pattern has negative health consequences for many people.
the cost of infrastructure required to do so is inefficient.
that is what leaders do; they loudly attract support usually in incredibly primitive [yet effective] ways. being a leader has nothing to do with being intelligent; we aren't going to follow the meekly supported brilliant plan of a introverted super nerd unless advanced by his belligerent screaming champion. And there isn't anything wrong with that. It takes all types.
I think if he paid taxes on the gift it is perfectly legal in the US. I question your cousin's business acumen. As an investor signed off on the conversion of his equity stake in the company into a useless depreciating asset.
the real point here is that your brain is so hard-wired by age that you cannot embrace the change or dynamism that drive human progress. it is time to wander off into the woods. alternatively accept that your opinions and thinking are outmoded and allow yourself to be reduced to some menial skill set until such time you can wander off into the woods.
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)
On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.
"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.
One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?
I think you'll get off to a better start if you think of people as individuals. I doubt you enjoy being assigned to some monolithic dehumanized collective.
Power grab, by who, from who? That sounds very conspiratorial. Can you enlighten me?
Save money? Insulate your quality of life from changes in the global energy landscape? Minimize waste? Self Improvement? Let us set aside "saving the world," thus all the criticism of that goal and focus on a lot of other compelling reasons to use your resources wisely. Are there really any compelling arguments against it?
I'm in favor of conservation and I don't believe that. I don't understand the point of your dichotomy when there exists many options between your two extremes.
One alternative is to realize that a reduction of one's energy footprint on the order of 20-40% can be made simply from awareness and intelligent choices requiring no compromise. I would argue that many of the easy big drivers of conservation improve quality of life and increase happiness. Beyond that change may be required. “Change” may be undesirable, reduce quality of life, or simply ill-informed perception.
A compelling driving force is the economic incentive, which is particularly attractive with a good scheme, e.g. pipe energy savings directly into non-taxable retirement accounts. Additional strategies enable insulation from future energy costs, or even directly hedging changes in future energy costs.
“Saving” becomes a fundamental exercise in efficiency, which should appeal to many types. It is a fundamental exercise in character, which should appeal to other types. It can be competitive, rewarding, challenging, and fun, which should appeal to even more types. It exercises the mind, satisfies curiosity, engages critical faculties, and requires learning and understanding about our connection and place in the world.
I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument against applied wisdom or trying one's best. But I’m always open to it.
that is a needlessly salacious description of someone who probably typified those in power at the time, of any race and religion.
30% savings by waiting 2 years? dunno. It hardly would have mattered in the grand scheme of the life of the vehicle except for the minor detail you would also now have approximately the purchase price of that car sitting in an index fund investment account.
A douche? I'm pointing out economic realities. Douchebags ignore economic realities and spend money frivolously.