Where does solar/renewables go from here? What will happen with President elect Trump?

BB.

10.  Do you have better options? Seriously asking.

• Nuclear. Not present reactors that were government subsidized to create fuel for nuclear weapons.
  

I did the hydrocarbon fuels reduction calc several years ago from (OMG) government data - quite astounding. Back then, the future did not look nearly as "bright" (LED costs, powerwall, 300 mile EVs, etc, etc) - amazing technology shifts very quickly.  If there was a limit, it appeared to be ability to design and construct all the needed production facilities (ignoring the "big oil" component!).  

• Not all "new tech" have been helpful or will be scalable for everyone. As I suggested above, the math for everyone with an electric car will not work. Need 100x more power generation stations (if electric). And government will need to collect taxes to pay for move from heavily taxed fuels (Europe with $8 per gallon gasoline will be hardest hit).
• Other things, like CFL and LED lighting have had their own issues. A 100 watt filimant lamp has a power factor of 1.0 (cosine of the phase angle between voltage and current, or the non sine-wave "pulse train" caused by diode rectifier into a high voltage capacitor used by CFL/LED lighting). A 20 watt CFL equivalent bulb, because of poor power factor, uses as much current as a 40 Watt filimant bulb (0.50 PF vs 1.00 PF). For a utility, they have to have wiring/transformers/generators that need to "supply electricity" to CFL/LED (with poor power factor) lamps. But they only get paid for the 20 Watts the lamp uses.
• Commercial customers already have to pay (dearly) for poor power factor installations--Or they "fix" their power factor (induction motors have poor power factor that can be "fixed" by adding capacitors). LED/CFL poor power factor cannot be "fixed" by adding capacitors--These changes must be made to the electronics in the lamp itself (called a power factor corrected power supply). Not hard to do, but does add some cost the bulb.
  

Believe me, not trying to be a smart-ass, but looking toward a future that assumes nothing more than improvements on existing technologies.  I'd sure like to see others "predictions". 

There you go, my serious answer (and guesses) to your serious questions.

Many solutions are disruptive to the existing "system/body". Either the solutions will have to change, or the system will have to change. No easy answers (the law of unintended consequences).

-Bill

softdown

^^^So much for thinking that BB might be a tree hugging liberal. This analysis is spot on by my estimation.

By the way, I have installed CO2 generators in plant based aquariums. Plants and trees thrive on CO2. Warming the planet by a couple degrees would indeed be beneficial. Lowering by several degrees could be catastrophic.

Most of the global warming hysteria is generated by folks who make a living from generating such hysteria.

Photowhit

Perhaps I'll give it a shot later tonight. I think nuclear fusion might be the 'holy grail' of clean energy, of course if it was simple everyone would be doing it...lol.

Every year they get a little closer, they think they have containment down, new reactor;

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/us-fusion-reactor/

jonr

> A 20 watt CFL equivalent bulb, because of poor power factor, uses as much current as a 40 Watt filimant bulb

With a non-linear load, peak current can be even worse.  Luckily, Energy Star LEDs mandate a  >.70 power factor.  Probably the ones you want to use anyway.

softdown

jonr said:

> A 20 watt CFL equivalent bulb, because of poor power factor, uses as much current as a 40 Watt filimant bulb

With a non-linear load, peak current can be even worse.  Luckily, Energy Star LEDs mandate a  >.70 power factor.  Probably the ones you want to use anyway.

Do you have a credible source for that CFL assertion?

Photowhit

If Trump reduces support for renewables, we might see a glut of panels on the market, again and prices fall to or below the material costs.... Might be good for off gridder's and nations without any support.

Dave Angelini

He said as much current!  Good CFL's are excellent ! It is just there are so many low quality CFL's
Back in the day my house ran on Costco FEIT Fluorecents. Excellent life, low power, but the slow start made it easy to upgrade.

Good quality CFL's are not bad at all and other than the slow start-up can be just as good as LED.
One of the weasle clauses on LED's when comparing to CFL is "the performance may vary depending on the CFL ballast"
A quality ballast is where the performance can vary quite a bit with CFL.

I have some Stecca 24vdc CFL's as yard lights, They were made in Germany and have been lighting the yard since 2002.
That is quite a few thermal cycles BTW. These draw about 13 watts and are 60 watt equivalents.

Dave Angelini

Photowhit said:

If Trump reduces support for renewables, we might see a glut of panels on the market, again and prices fall to or below the material costs.... Might be good for off gridder's and nations without any support.

The renewable support will run out by itself as the legislation was written.  We shall see what happens!

mike95490

Currently, LFP batteries are close to 99% efficient.   But very expensive for house sized units

PV panels have at least a 20year usable life, I would expect 30 years for well sealed models.  Early 50 year old PV panels are still going strong.

Photowhit

Dave Angelini said:

Photowhit said:

If Trump reduces support for renewables, we might see a glut of panels on the market, again and prices fall to or below the material costs.... Might be good for off gridder's and nations without any support.

The renewable support will run out by itself as the legislation was written.  We shall see what happens!

I guess I should have implied the support in general, under Trump leadership. I suspect in 2 years "net metering" as we know it will look more like Nevada and Arizona(?). I haven't even checked to see if it still exists in Florida...

Dave Angelini

I think if you look at Net Metering, it has been changing long before Mr. Trump.
 Offgrid where most of my time is spent, I just want him to be successful for the country. Solar is just a drop in the bucket.

Photowhit

Dave Angelini said:

I think if you look at Net Metering, it has been changing long before Mr. Trump.
 Offgrid where most of my time is spent, I just want him to be successful for the country. Solar is just a drop in the bucket.

Yes, but I expect a more rapid pace. I do hope he's successful too, just not at the expense of the environment.

Floridians voted down the "End to Net Metering" amendment, so I'll bet a division of line fees and usage fees, and maybe higher subscriber fees within the year;
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/floridas-amendment-1-defeat-shows-why-solar-wont-be-stopped-trump-or-no/430373/

MarkC

BB. said

There you go, my serious answer (and guesses) to your serious questions.

Many solutions are disruptive to the existing "system/body". Either the solutions will have to change, or the system will have to change. No easy answers (the law of unintended consequences).

-Bill

Bill - the post answer/question is so long, I've only referenced your last response.  Thanks for taking the (usual) time to answer honestly and thoughtfully;

To clarify - I'm in no way a proponent of "carbon" being labeled a pollutant and controlled as SO2, SO3, NOx, etc, need to be.  I'm a firm believer in climate change - by Mother Nature - as a changing climate is the nature of things, so there is no agenda for carbon tax, EPA regs on CO2 emissions, etc.  As to "incentives" for renewables and EVs, IMHO, there is a need for both in our future and hope they continue - If Trump asks me, I'll tell him so (unlikely?).  Is there a need to conserve a non-renewable resource such as crude oil, natural gas, condensates - I think so for my grandkids to use as feed stocks for needed chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc.

I realize the current state of technology does not support the economics of solar panel installations without subsidies.  However, I've installed a 4000 watt GT system (~7 year payout after both co-op and Fed subsidies) and currently finishing a 3000 watt system to solar charge my Nissan Leaf EV (~20+ year payout with Fed subsidies only).  Mostly a hobby/experiment in my retirement years.  

Is technology changing (rapidly)?  I've read recent claims (what I consider somewhat excessive) from Elon Musk that "solar roofs" (PV tiles) will pay for themselves on a life cycle basis vs conventional roofs.  Is this BS or the future?   Musk/Tesla also has advertised the Powerwall 2 which appears to be about as cheap as I've seen in $$/KWH for a Lithium based battery - with the included inverter and a 10 year (I believe at 80% capacity) warranty.  I don't know if he is going to offer a high voltage MPPT charge controller, but IMO, his "Solar City" will need it.  

Here are the specs for the Tesla Powerwall 2:

• Mounting: Wall or Floor Mounted, Indoor/Outdoor
• Inverter: Fully integrated Tesla inverter
• Energy: 14 kWh
• Power: 5 kW continuous, 7 kW peak
• Round Trip Efficiency: 89% for AC Powerwall, 91.8% for DC Powerwall
• Operating Temperature Range: –20°C to 50°C (–4°F to 122°F)
• Warranty: Unlimited cycles for up to 10 years
• Dimensions: 1150 mm x 755 mm x 155 mm (45.3 in x 29.7 in x 6.1 in)
• Weight: 122 kg (269 lbs)

If my math is correct, it is about 5.2 KWH/100 lbs (with inverter).  My Leaf's battery is about 4 KWH/100 lbs without. 
I believe the round trip numbers refer to energy shifting so that the "smarts" can be programmed to charge late night/early morning when existing power plants are at idle and then utilized during peak usage during our busy day.   IF (a big IF) the majority of commuter miles were "energized" by EVs, could the excess, unused EV battery capacity be used with similar smarts to essentially keep all of our existing power plants at full capacity - and also help level out the "solar" peak problems?  Nissan is doing something similar in Europe with their V2G (vehicle to grid).   Could this offset much of the needed increases in capacity of our current power grid via a "leveling" effect?

The amount of gasoline used by US commuters is a significant % of total transportation fuels.  Any significant move to EVs for commuting can result in a large reduction in that sector of fuels usage.  My personal experience with owning a 2012 Leaf for almost a year is that it will save me annually about $1000 in "fuel" (over 500 gallons) and about $2000 in other expenses vs driving my Suburban (which I must have for my business).  I've decided to keep my Suburban for another couple of years as a result.  Sure makes you realize how cheap (subsidized?) electricity is.

Would I buy a new EV today?  Probably not unless it seamlessly integrated with my solar systems.  Meanwhile the "experiments" continue.




  

jonr

It wasn't my statement - here is how I would word it:

A 20 watt device with a .5 PF draws as much RMS current as a 40 watt, 1.0 PF device.    The former will draw 1/2 the average current.   Peak current is hard to predict, but with a non-linear 20W device, it could be many times more.

RMS current predicts wire heating/losses.  Average current is roughly what most people pay for (actually average power).  Peak current may be important in preventing an inverter from tripping.

softdown

We  all know that oil will become harder to get....someday. Tar sands may keep us going for a looong time after the Middle East runs a bit short. I consider it prudent to keep on working on alternate energy sources. Government throwing money at it? Who else has the pockets?

Yet when I look at the math of many government subsidies, I think "We are toast."

Photowhit

MarkC said:

 I'm a firm believer in climate change - by Mother Nature -

~~~~~~~
I realize the current state of technology does not support the economics of solar panel installations without subsidies.

I hope you remember the Dust bowl? Acid rain? Humans can change/effect climate. It is not a "can't be done" thing. I'm still a little skeptical, but think it's likely we have created problems.

Off grid can and does compete with grid electric in expensive places. Hawaii would be an example. Also where minimal users and high user/lines fees are involved. I'm likely very close or beating electric costs of @30 cents a Kwh now, in central Missouri. kwh cost 9 cents, but as a minimal user the $32.50 user fee makes it closer to 30 cents a kwh. I'll have to go back and run the numbers.

MarkC

Photowhit said:

Off grid can and does compete with grid electric in expensive places. Hawaii would be an example. Also where minimal users and high user/lines fees are involved. I'm likely very close or beating electric costs of @30 cents a Kwh now, in central Missouri. kwh cost 9 cents, but as a minimal user the $32.50 user fee makes it closer to 30 cents a kwh. I'll have to go back and run the numbers.

Should qualify - my economics are based on grid-tied, but I got a great subsidy from my provider and what started as a 9 cent/KWH buy back of energy - that has now been reduced to 7 cents with the 2 cents difference added to the "distribution" cost.  Go figure.

Marc Kurth

Photowhit said:

MarkC said:

 I'm a firm believer in climate change - by Mother Nature -

~~~~~~~
I realize the current state of technology does not support the economics of solar panel installations without subsidies.

I hope you remember the Dust bowl? Acid rain? Humans can change/effect climate. It is not a "can't be done" thing. I'm still a little skeptical, but think it's likely we have created problems.

Off grid can and does compete with grid electric in expensive places. Hawaii would be an example. Also where minimal users and high user/lines fees are involved. I'm likely very close or beating electric costs of @30 cents a Kwh now, in central Missouri. kwh cost 9 cents, but as a minimal user the $32.50 user fee makes it closer to 30 cents a kwh. I'll have to go back and run the numbers.

I would love to see your cost comparison analysis! I am honestly interested because in my neck of the woods, PV for folks on the grid has almost no economic justification that I can see, without artificial rate payer/tax payer subsidies.

What I learn on this site helps me understand the dynamics of investing big dollars to beat low power costs. With 4kw+ of PV, I would think that you would be more than a "minimal user" without your PV, as far as cost comparison.

I pay $0.10/kwh flat rate, no tiers, no TOU. User connection charge is $22.50 per month. The driving force for off grid around here is the cost of running new service to a remote location. And of course the desire to be more self sufficient.......

Marc

softdown

Self sufficient? Sure. But dependent on weather, batteries, panels, charge controllers, inverters, generators, and the rest of the stuff.

It is...shall we say...a more exciting life?

Marc Kurth

softdown said:

Self sufficient? Sure. But dependent on weather, batteries, panels, charge controllers, inverters, generators, and the rest of the stuff.

It is...shall we say...a more exciting life?

It's all about perspective and perception.

Photowhit

Marc Kurth said:
I would love to see your cost comparison analysis! I am honestly interested because in my neck of the woods, PV for folks on the grid has almost no economic justification that I can see, without artificial rate payer/tax payer subsidies.

A few things have happened and not happened. I never purchased a new Inverter, though I think I expensed it. I also don't think my battery will make it the 15 years, though we'll see. It was likely 'poisoned' before I moved it to it's new location. I worked security and lived in a playground for adults, one of the cells became very dark in color a month or 2 after I purchased the battery. It was holding SG fine, just dark, now it's not nearly as dark, but It's SG stays lower 1.24-1.25. equalizing brings it up, I've gone to longer absorb which has helped as well, time will tell.

The local power company has increased it's user fees from $25 to $32.50 and that might go up. I ran the numbers without the tax credit. I don't now if I have mention of the extra 2600 watts of panels that have yet to be installed. I will install 4 this year and perhaps setup a PV to DC water heater system with most of the others.

I also acknowledge that there is an expense of installing a wood heater and cutting or purchasing wood each year, but the $ is calculated without the cost of electric heat. It is an off grid system and I do load shift. The cost savings if I had started with a 48 volt battery would become an expense since saving a charge controller would be more than offset by buying a 48 volt inverter.

Link to a thread about by cost projections

Dave Angelini

Marc Kurth said:

softdown said:

Self sufficient? Sure. But dependent on weather, batteries, panels, charge controllers, inverters, generators, and the rest of the stuff.

It is...shall we say...a more exciting life?

It's all about perspective and perception.

Most definately!  I try to take the exciting out of a power system. Main goal for my clients, boring power 24/7 !
Is the sun shining?  Move on......

t00ls

I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised with the new adminisration dealing with renewable energy

softdown

t00ls said:

I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised with the new adminisration dealing with renewable energy

Do you have a demonstrable argument for that thinking? As for me, I have almost no idea what Trump will do. His compass seems to be of the variable type. Though I believe he will take steps to make running a business a more user friendly enterprise. I am sure that he has fielded thousands of letters from various governmental psychopaths, I mean regulatory agencies. They only know one way to communicate. A product of having one tool in their tool box....a hammer.

Photowhit

t00ls said:

I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised with the new adminisration dealing with renewable energy

We can hope, and I do. His seat of the pants tweets and messages are creating lots of nervousness here. Perhaps he'll just escalate the arms race to put everyone back to work... Scares me to no end!

Marc Kurth

I learned a long time ago that campaign promises and chest thumping during an election are quickly modified when reality sets in. I have no choice but to wait until he is president to see what he actually does - or tries to do.

softdown

Marc Kurth said:

I learned a long time ago that campaign promises and chest thumping during an election are quickly modified when reality sets in. I have no choice but to wait until he is president to see what he actually does - or tries to do.

Such a sober assessment. You must not politic too much. Politics are frequently just a cover for uncivilized aggression from the naked apes.

Mangas

I am not an engineer so I have no idea whatsoever if this makes any sense.

Off grid, could solar excess DC charging be used for water electrolysis freeing hydrogen for heating, fuel cell, etc.

Likelihood future technology will solve storage and use of hydrogen as a byproduct of solar production? 

BB.

Hydrogen is quite a difficult gas to store/pipe/etc. You either need a lot of storage space (low temperature) or very high pressure to get reasonable amounts of stored energy (unless you go with liquification/cryogenic storage)--High pressure/cryogenic storage takes lots of energy and high pressure pumps need maintenance/replacement every few years (typical for high pressure natural gas for residential vehicle use).

Another issue is that hydrogen is a very small molecule and will leak through just about any threads. And you can get hydrogen embrittlement of steel (and other metals?).

Fuel cells typically require very pure gasses or they tend to plug up.

Hydrogen will probably not be a useful fuel for large scale distribution. Natural gas and other fossil fuels (gasses/liquids) will probably remain the "best" fuels for large scale use (cheaper to ship, fewer leaks, higher energy density, feed stocks for other products, etc.).

-Bill

Mangas

Thanks Bill!

Really interesting. 

I should have paid more attention in science class!