Is it practical to generate all US power by solar PV?

[CalcNerd]

So where do you really think that energy would come from?

Did you read anything about piezoelectric generators? The energy they are getting from the vehicle is the energy that is imparted upon the pavement as the vehicle passes over the roadway. That gravitational energy (weight) is always wasted, this is just a method to recover that energy. It is, admittedly not from nothing, but it is always there, and not recovered. However, these piezoelectric generators would recover THAT energy. Are they practical? No. But you could have done your own research before you ask.
.
Here is a link for reference:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/israel-piezoelectric-highway-20091006/#.VyIjs2f2Y5s

 

[Averagesupernova]

Did you read anything about piezoelectric generators? The energy they are getting from the vehicle is the energy that is imparted upon the pavement as the vehicle passes over the roadway. That gravitational energy (weight) is always wasted, this is just a method to recover that energy. It is, admittedly not from nothing, but it is always there, and not recovered. However, these piezoelectric generators would recover THAT energy. Are they practical? No. But you could have done your own research before you ask.
.
Here is a link for reference:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/israel-piezoelectric-highway-20091006/#.VyIjs2f2Y5s

My bold, no such thing.

 

[CalcNerd]

My bold, no such thing.

True, my poor choice of wording. What would you call it? Energy is recovered by the vehicle passing over the piezoelectric generator, that is a reproductable "ie proven" fact.

 

[Baluncore]

But you could have done your own research before you ask.

I understand piezo transducers. I just wanted to know where you thought the energy might come from. Conservation of energy holds.

That gravitational energy (weight) is always wasted,

Gravitational energy is not weight. Weight is only a force, being the product of mass and the acceleration due to gravity.
If something moves when you apply a force, you have done work and transferred energy. If it does not move when the force is applied then you have done no work and transferred no energy. What you appear to be saying is that the road drops as your wheel rolls onto it, then rises as you drive up out of the hole. That means you are always driving up hill.
I am saying that energy must come from your fuel supply.

 

[anorlunda]

Rooftop Solar

Residential rooftop solar PV is tremendously appealing. I myself get all my power from PV panels (but on my boat, I don't have a house). I suspect that many PF members reading this thread think that rooftop solar is the subject of this thread. If everybody just did what early adopters have already done, we have the national energy system solved. It's not that simple.

As I noted in #17, 42% of US households live in multifamily dwellings. I guess that half of the 58% of single family homes don't have the unshaded southern exposure needed. Therefore only about 30% of residential electric use is candidate for rooftop solar. I'll further estimate that half of commercial power could be rooftop PV (that might be too high). The EIA says that US electric sales were 38% residential, 36% commercial, and 26% industrial. From all that, I calculate that a national PV solar grid would have at most 25% rooftop solar, and 75% utility-owned solar farms.

Residential rooftop solar is a form of distributed generation. Here's a pretty good article on that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
Distributed generation causes numerous problems for utility designers of power distribution grids. Some of the problems are mentioned in the Wiki article. Some, but not all, of the problems are mitigated by mandated "utility interface boxes". I'm not an expert on distributed generation, so perhaps other PF members on this thread can post about it..

A partial cure for the overhead costs of distributed generation on the power grid could be to form micro-grids. The wiki article includes a section on that. But a micro grid is much more than stringing wires between neighboring houses in the neighborhood. For one thing, the National Electric Code (NEC) imposes numerous restrictions on how it must be designed and implemented. The micro grid must also provide its own backup. A real life micro grid needs to be designed by professional engineers, and the cost is far too high for most neighborhoods. It is possible that providers of pre-engineered off-the-shelf micro grids could appear. Anyhow, in my estimate, I do not plan to include any micro grid influence on total costs.

But from a layman's view, just consider that 120 years of tradition have evolved power distribution systems based on the valid assumption that only loads, not generators, exist at the far ends of those lines. When that assumption becomes invalid, it challenges the whole approach to distribution at a pretty fundamental level. In my total estimate spreadsheet, I plan to just eyeball a number for the utility's costs to accommodate distributed generation and add that to the solar O&M costs.

I also expect that many solar enthusiasts assume that expansion of rooftop solar will continue to be financed by net metering. I understand the "good for the goose - good for the gander" logic behind net metering. But that is not a sustainable business model. It transfers costs to non-solar utility customers. Also, IMO it is just not fair. I'll explain why.

Living off the grid, a PV homeower has to pay for energy storage and backup. Perhaps batteries. Perhaps a backup gas-powered generator. Perhaps a contract with a third party backup provider. In all those cases, the homeowner has to pay the cost. But if the backup provider is the public utility, homeowners think that service should be provided free via net metering (free if your net is zero kwh). That makes no sense. If we paid the utility for backup service only, the shocking reality is that about 75% of the monthly bill is for power delivery and installed capacity costs, and only 25% for actual energy used. That is hidden from many consumers today because delivery costs are buried in the kwh energy charge, but if the utility provided backup only service (with zero energy use) zero, the real costs would have to be exposed.

In my estimate, I do not plan to include any net metering in total costs.

 

[CalcNerd]

Gravitational energy is not weight. Weight is only a force, being the product of mass and the acceleration due to gravity.
If something moves when you apply a force, you have done work and transferred energy. If it does not move when the force is applied then you have done no work and transferred no energy. What you appear to be saying is that the road drops as your wheel rolls onto it, then rises as you drive up out of the hole. That means you are always driving up hill.
I am saying that energy must come from your fuel supply.

While this is technically true, the actual compression of these piezoelectric generators is nearly miniscule. The energy that they are actually recovering is the energy that would normally be wasted by the vehicle anyway. They are NOT driving uphill in any measurable form. Normal asphalt probably compresses more than these transducers.

 

[Salvador]

@CalcNerd , Solar panels to account for the whole US energy production in itself is a big enough challenge , piezoelectric roads I think are simply out of the frame by any means.I don't know how much power would they produce per mile and how much they would cost for the same mile but my gut tells me the energy out vs production cost , logistics problems and basically rebuilding the whole infrastructure of roads, which the government is already sweating to simply keep up the repairs as the roads age, sounds unrealistic.

@Jim as I read what you say about standing next to a large turbine running and the coal trains going by , I cannot but think how much work goes to waste since the thermal cycle of steam is only what ? 50% efficiency , I guess the real number was less.
Imagine how many tons of coal simply go through the chimney every minute without ever getting to a useful end other than increasing the already high "greenhouse" gas in atmosphere.
Sometimes I feel a bit sad that physics robs us even more from an already not too ECO friendly energy production's output power.

 

[Baluncore]

Normal asphalt probably compresses more than these transducers.

But the existing road surface is elastic. The wheel rolls in a depression. The force on the front of the wheel is balanced against the force on the rear of the wheel. If you extract some energy, it is no longer elastic, the forces do not balance and so it costs more in fuel. If you extract energy from the roadway you must supply all that energy by using more fuel.

Consider covering the road surface with piezo transducers, but do not connect the terminals. It is elastic, has balanced forces and is efficient. If you then connect the terminals and extract some energy, all that extracted energy comes from your vehicle tank or battery.

 

[Baluncore]

I think it is a mistake to worship huge power generation plants and huge energy consuming businesses. If a plant needs power then it should buy and operate sufficient generator plant. I tire of subsidising cheap power to industry by being connected to the state grid.

I have installed PV and am now energy and revenue neutral. I am still connected to the state hydroelectric grid. During the day when I have excess PV power I am delaying the fall of water from reservoirs. That water can be used later when needed. So the hydroelectric grid is effectively my storage system and I do not need a battery bank.

I pay a network fee as well as a fee for the power I consume. The network fee is progressively rising while storage battery costs are falling, so the economic justification for abandoning the expensive network connection increases. As more customers step away, the network maintenance cost to the remaining customers will increase faster, until something breaks. If the network can no longer compete financially, then why should I keep supporting the network. We live in interesting times.

The argument that network evolution in the past justifies its continued use today is clearly false. Things change.
The historical power distribution system has become an anachronism.

 

[CalcNerd]

But the existing road surface is elastic. The wheel rolls in a depression. The force on the front of the wheel is balanced against the force on the rear of the wheel. If you extract some energy, it is no longer elastic, the forces do not balance and so it costs more in fuel. If you extract energy from the roadway you must supply all that energy by using more fuel.

Consider covering the road surface with piezo transducers, but do not connect the terminals. It is elastic, has balanced forces and is efficient. If you then connect the terminals and extract some energy, all that extracted energy comes from your vehicle tank or battery.

Actually, this IS NOT TRUE. The typical road also absorbs energy. Have you noticed that heavily traveled roads in the winter do not have ICE on them in the northern areas. That is because they are warmed by the energy of the cars passing over them. A typical road robs energy from the vehicle. These transducers are merely collecting this energy (and not the energy of raising the car via Potential Energy). I suggest you do some research on these transducers if you are going to pursue that arguement. Their compressions are measured in micrometers ie your car tires will not be robbed of any extra energy unless you decide to compare to a steel roadway with zero compression. Read the stats on these devices. They are crystal based ie the compression in not easily measurable, especially in comparison to the give of a pneumatic tire.

@CalcNerd , Solar panels to account for the whole US energy production in itself is a big enough challenge , piezoelectric roads I think are simply out of the frame by any means.I don't know how much power would they produce per mile and how much they would cost for the same mile but my gut tells me the energy out vs production cost , logistics problems and basically rebuilding the whole infrastructure of roads, which the government is already sweating to simply keep up the repairs as the roads age, sounds unrealistic.

I agree that the piezoelectric IS NOT a viable solution (in at least two posts). It is a pie in the sky solution, but not for the reasons Baluncore wants to argue. His concern is with the 1st law of thermodynamics, that you can't get something for nothing. I am NOT arguing that either, my argument is that a piezoelectric transducer IS NOT reducing his mileage on the vehicles passing over them. These transducers are merely collecting energy that is normally wasted by a vehicles or the tires interaction with a roadway surface (better terminology is awaiting a reply from Averagesupernova here).

 

[jim hardy]

50% efficiency , I guess the real number was less.
Imagine how many tons of coal simply go through the chimney every minute without ever getting to a useful end other than increasing the already high "greenhouse" gas in atmosphere.

40% is about right for a 1000 degF 2400psi steam plant before the days of stack scrubbers.
Gas turbines with a heat recovery steam cycle can make 50%.
You might enjoy reading about early efforts to help Carnot help us by using mercury for working fluid here
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/mercury/mercury.htm
...today that'd make EPA madder than hatters...

Just to give this scale:
There are about 46,000 miles of interstate highway in the US https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm
to achieve Nikkom's 150² square miles of solar panels
we'd need a corridor for them one half mile wide enclosing the US interstate system.
Well, that'd be distributed and provide access but it's a lot of land to condemn and claim . Risk of sparking a landowner revolt.

I agree that the piezoelectric IS NOT a viable solution (in at least two posts).

If a heavily traveled piezo road can make 100 kw/km, 160kw/mile
160E3 X 46,000 = 7.36E9 watts
digging up the whole Interstate system to put piezo underneath might make 7.36 gigawatts , 7% of the 1000 gw target.
And i think that's optimistic - see http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/garland1/

However, a more reasonable approximation can be made by using the fact that approximately 5% of the energy consumed by the car is lost as rolling friction, although rolling friction accounts for both internal friction in the wheels and friction due to the asphalt. [5] By replacing thermal efficiency in the above equation with 5%, the amount of energy released into the ground for one 20 mpg car would decrease to 0.19 MJ. This one-kilometer strip could then power at most 13 homes (32 kW) for the 20 mpg car, or 52 homes (128 kW) for an 18-wheeler. For this calculation, there is still a major assumption that all the vibrational energy of the road is captured by piezoelectric devices.

It is not clear whether the numbers currently used to quantify generating capacity are misguided or simply misreported, but under the optimistic assumptions stated above, piezoelectric devices over a one-kilometer strip of road will generate power for only about 15 homes. Unless the road carries only 5 mpg vehicles (or many more than 600 vehicles per hour), it is unlikely that anywhere near 400 kW of power can be generated from one kilometer.

This thread is about practicality - i agree piezo roads don't make the cut.old jim

 

[Salvador]

I would agree with what you say @CalcNerd , the only time when the road becomes somewhat elastic is only under two conditions , first the outside temperature is high enough with preferably direct sunlight and it's made of tarmac which is much softer under higher temperatures than reinforced concrete as used in some places or any other teeth grinding surface.I also doubt a car with ordinary struts and shock absorbers can get anything back from the road once it's started to jiggle back and forth up and down while going down a bad or heavily used road.
maybe modern cars with electromagnetic shock absorbers can indeed get something back.

Another interesting topic @Baluncore raised is that we should stop "worshiping" big plants and big consumers and big grid business , Ok I am all for it , but since you know physics which I think you do , tell me how are you planning to make these main electricity generating plants small?
We know fission can't be smaller than some given size because mainly of critical mass , the heavy tech involved and the steam cycle itself.
the promising fusion also has a minimum size even if we one day achieve a net output at all.
Same goes for hydro , an let's not even talk about coal here were not only size but smell is a big factor.
So in these terms how do you see the grid a thing of the past as of yet?

Ok renewables , yes they can be made smaller and can be afforded by individuals installed either into their houses , property etc.
Yet still do most homes have the resources and the capability to do so ?
Also do most residential or work areas are located in places were the main renewables are common enough to yield any worthwhile output?
Being energy neutral would probably be the greatest thing since industrial revolution but I don't see it coming yet.
If someone or you Baluncore for that matter have any opposing answers to my raised questions please go ahead and shoot me down.
P.S. and even the solar idea here talked about in this thread , if implemented the way I see it is not something someone is going to build in his backyard and become neutral , maybe even a business himself , it will probably too be one of the many large energy companies properties with the output electricity being sold to the national grid.
I assume you live in Australia and get a lot of sunlight which might be the reason you are lucky enough to use solar panels.
Were I live I would need a really big battery (non existent) to charge up because I'm getting serious sunlight only less than half of the year.

That being said I do agree that diversification is definitely a must even if the output from the renewables can't fulfill all your needs, some is still better than none.
If Ii would have a private house instead of an apartment in a highrise building I would definitely use both solar and wind since I'm getting wind throughout the year.
Knowing physics , heck I could build a windmill myself for the fun of it , my friend did that years ago and doesn't complain a bit.

 

[jim hardy]

I have installed PV and am now energy and revenue neutral. I am still connected to the state hydroelectric grid. During the day when I have excess PV power I am delaying the fall of water from reservoirs. That water can be used later when needed. So the hydroelectric grid is effectively my storage system and I do not need a battery bank.

You have the right idea there !

You must live in a mild climate.
Sun belt needs air conditioning
and we are so accustomed to hot water and frost free 1kw refrigerators that a break-even pv system is not yet for the average homeowner.

I dream of going off grid but it'll have to wait until i invent a practical two ton solar chiller.

old jim

 

[Salvador]

Or just listen to more rap music were artists like Nelly used to rhyme quote directly from the song

"Its gettin hot in here (so hot)
So take off all your clothes

I am gettin so hot, I want to take my clothes off"

P.S. Sorry for the interruption. :)

 

[jim hardy]

We know fission can't be smaller than some given size because mainly of critical mass , the heavy tech involved and the steam cycle itself.

The shielding required to protect operators means there'll be a lot of concrete required. So you make it big enough that the concrete supports required to hold it up are also big enough to provide shielding.

Military has built small 1 to 2 megawatt reactor plants that fit on a flatbed trailer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

Backyard Nukes are possible but not practical.

 

[mheslep]

Residential rooftop solar PV is ...

one of the most expensive sources of electricity in existence. In undesirable locations, it is *the* most expensive, even more than diesel engines. The 2015 US unsubsidized price (LCOE) ranged from 18 to 30 cents per kWh. And we've still not addressed storage. Utility scale solar is four to six times cheaper than residential rooftop, and avoids the cost shifting of net metering.

https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf

 

[anorlunda]

In #26, @mheslep provided a link estimating the cost for a national 7 day battery.

But that link assumed 3TW total. I resist using total energy rather than electric energy just to keep this discussion more focused. I use 1TW instead of 3.

The link assumed lead-acid batteries. That's already out-of-date. I will use 1/2 that number for 2016 technology batteries.

 

[mheslep]

There have been several studies done to investigate a high percentage of the US grid run by renewable sources of power - hydro, solar, wind, biomass; these would seem to begin to answer the OP's question. Some of the more prominent:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Renewable Electricity Futures Study, 2012, 4 volumes. They assess a variety of scenarios with renewable penetration from 30% to 90% of the US grid load by 2050. Unsurprisingly, NREL finds a large need for dispatchable power sources (i.e. reliable) in the high renewable scenario, and so they conjure up hundreds of gigawatts of new geothermal, new hydropower, and new biomass generation, a disappointment in my opinion, as it implies the US had a hundreds of GW of cheap geo and hydro resource sitting around unused.

Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials, Jacobson and Delucchi. Jacobson is a Stanford Civil Engineering professor. Jacobson is stridently anti-nuclear, claiming it to be significant CO2 emitter by way of the large fires that would occur in the even of a nuclear weapon attack, somehow mixing nuclear power and weapons.

 

[anorlunda]

OK, here is my estimate. I rushed it a bit because this thread it getting out of control with side topics.

$\begin{array}{rlll}\\ \mbox{Value}&\mbox{Item}&\mbox{Units}&\mbox{Source}\\ \mbox{1}&\mbox{TW base}&\mbox{TW}&\mbox{link 1}\\ \mbox{1}&\mbox{TW reserves}&\mbox{TW}&\mbox{anorlunda #22}\\ \mbox{2}&\mbox{TW total}&\mbox{TW}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$3.00 }&\mbox{\$/watt utility}&\mbox{\$/watt all in cost}&\mbox{link 2}\\ \mbox{\$6.00 }&\mbox{\$/watt rooftop}&\mbox{\$/watt all in cost}&\mbox{Jim Hardy #2 }&\mbox{ anorlunda #20}\\ \mbox{\$3.75 }&\mbox{\$/watt weighted}&\mbox{}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$2.17 }&\mbox{energy storage}&\mbox{\$trillion}&\mbox{mheslep #26 }&\mbox{anorlunda #52}\\ \mbox{\$9.67 }&\mbox{total investment}&\mbox{\$trillion}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{125,000,000}&\mbox{000}&\mbox{000 "}&\mbox{US households}&\mbox{}&\mbox{statisa.com}\\ \mbox{\$77,333.33}&\mbox{333.33 "}&\mbox{investment per household}&\mbox{\$}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$489.25 }&\mbox{amortized 20 years}&\mbox{\$/month}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$60.00 }&\mbox{Utility O}&\mbox{M}&\mbox{\$/kw*year}&\mbox{link 3}\\ \mbox{\$10.00 }&\mbox{Roofop O}&\mbox{M}&\mbox{\$/kw*year}&\mbox{anorlunda}\\ \mbox{\$30.00 }&\mbox{Roofop share of distributed}&\mbox{\$/kw*year}&\mbox{anorlunda}\\ \mbox{\$55.00 }&\mbox{Average O}&\mbox{M}&\mbox{\$/kw*year}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$110.00 }&\mbox{O}&\mbox{M Cost}&\mbox{\$B/year}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$73.33 }&\mbox{O}&\mbox{M per household}&\mbox{\$/month}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \mbox{\$562.58 }&\mbox{cost per household}&\mbox{\$/month}&\mbox{calculated}\\ \end{array}$

link 1 www.eia.gov
link 2 http://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/d
link 3 http://www.scottmadden.com/insight/solar-photovoltaic-plant-operating-and-maintenance-costs/
where the source includes #n, that refers to post #n in this thread.
where the source says anorlunda, that means an eyeball guess totally without support.

The bottom line, is the cost per household, $563/month. That includes each household's share of total electric infrastructure including commercial and industrial. Whether directly or indirectly we end up paying for it anyhow.

Wearing my project manager's hat, I could easily make an argument that contingencies for such a far-out project beyond our experience base, could easily exceed estimates by 100-400%. Therefore, I could have, but did not, apply a safety factor.

Some people might think that all the costs fit into a Moore's Law type of expotential decay of future prices. That's not true because only some of the costs decline with technology (see Ahmdal's Law).

• I reran the estimate for 5 years in the future assuming panels cost half today's price, and energy storage costs 70% today's price. The answer was $486/month per household.
• I reran the estimate for 20 years in the future assuming panels cost 2% today's price, and energy storage costs 10% today's price. The answer was $378/month per household.

 

[Svein]

Just a couple of points regarding upkeep of rooftop solar panels:

• Dust
• Snow
• Dirt

The efficiency of a snow-covered solar panel is not very high...

 

[Baluncore]

The OP title question; “Is it practical to generate all US power by solar PV?” has the answer NO.
There will always be a diverse mix composed of new and old systems. At different times different systems will be selected on reasons of practicality, economics and politics.

Ok I am all for it , but since you know physics which I think you do , tell me how are you planning to make these main electricity generating plants small?

I do not need to make them small. I believe the industry that uses the power should pay the cost of running the plant. That would reduce the size of the plants by reducing the availability of subsidised power.

I live on a rock at the end of the Earth, it is shaped like a merkin, south of the Australian mainland. It is about 43° south, way down in the Roaring Forties. My PV panels face north with a slope of about 45° and so get cleaned by the frost on clear nights, or by the rain that sometimes falls here. It does snow occasionally in winter, but it does not last. Temperatures range between –5°C and +40°C.
As it is here, a state corporation owns the system and the privately negotiated industry rates are a "commercial in confidence" secret. Home owners are being charged at a much higher rate than industry and so are being pushed economically to protect themselves by abandoning the grid.

The state now pays the same for excess power generated as it sells power to the residential customer. In effect I am now actually supplying power to my neighbours who do not have PV. But we both pay the network fixed fee for access to the entire state grid.

The rate paid by the state for excess power from PV is about to fall to 33%. That is a new 66% tax on the power I supply to my neighbours. I am prohibited from running a private power line so I now have little choice but to buy a storage system and go it alone. The state corporation will then have to generate that power and transmit it across the grid with attendant losses, to get it to my neighbours house. That is not environmentally sensible.

A private power company laid a HV DC cable from the mainland to the island. The price of power on the mainland, generated thermally from brown coal, then doubled, and so the power on the island had to double because they were now tied together. My power bill doubled.

Last spring, the power company sold green hydroelectric power from the island to the mainland whenever the price was high. Our reservoirs fell to 15% of capacity. Just when the power should have started to come back, the cable failed and has been under repair now for four months. Reservoirs are at 12% and falling. We are entering a dry winter with an expected continuing drought. Massive banks of diesel generators are being installed adjacent to hydroelectric switch-yards. The aluminium industry uses 33% of all power here so it has now agreed to reduce output. The residents will end up paying the commercial compensation and the cost of all the diesel fuel used to continue refining some aluminium.

So you see, the economic and political trajectory distorts the market and results in small users subsidising the inefficient bureaucracy and corporate multinational industries. PV and lower cost battery storage is now riding into town, just in time to save us from the grid, from the bureaucracy and from the multinationals.

When the big generators are left alone, and have to cover their real power costs, they will get smaller and disappear.

It is such a pity that delaying the use of hydro power is no longer economic as storage, and so I must install batteries.
It was once such an environmentally beautiful, sensible and low cost solution.

 

[jim hardy]

I believe the industry that uses the power should pay the cost of running the plant.

That's how my former employer got started - a Florida ice company with a number of icemaking plants began selling power to residents who lived nearby. Now its stock symbol is NEE...
Economy of scale dictated central station generators and an electric grid.

Times are a'changing and that's why i started the thread.

i would think your utility could recover the cost of that diesel generation from the mainland utility that owes you the power.
My utility did something similar in their early days for a local sawmill who'd used up their inventory of sawdust fuel selling power to the "big " electric company. There was an ethic back then, "A small company should not get hurt by doing business in good faith with a big company. "

In effect I am now actually supplying power to my neighbours who do not have PV. But we both pay the network fixed fee for access to the entire state grid.

I don't understand that complaint. You and your neighbors are both connected to the grid. Should one of you not pay for the meter and poles to your house ? Were you a bigger producer they'd probably charge you by the kwh that you wheel through their lines...

 

[Baluncore]

I don't understand that complaint.

Not a complaint. An ideal situation where the trade is transparent and paperwork free. But things are about to change.

 

[Baluncore]

i would think your utility could recover the cost of that diesel generation from the mainland utility that owes you the power.

The power trading company that operates the cable purchased the power on the island and sold it at a profit to the mainland. To buy power back when prices are lower, or the storage is low, is not possible since the cable has failed, which has now made the water shortage a critical situation.
Maybe it will be working again in another month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basslink

The state has just started an inquiry into the feasibility of laying another parallel cable. I think that will get them into trouble twice as fast.

 

[jim hardy]

To buy power back when prices are lower, or the storage is low, is not possible since the cable has failed, which has now made the water shortage a critical situation.

The power trading company that operates the cable

You guys are incurring a loss because of those guys' cable failure. You had reasonable expectation of power being available to your island from that trading company to replenish your reservoir. Contract should have obligated them to deliver. You might share part of the cost because you took on the risk...

In the case i mentioned , the local sawmill, it was just lack of experience on the sawmill operator's part that he sold all his fuel to the power company as electricity in his first season of interconnect, found himself unable to meet his own needs and was faced with having to buy back power at the much higher retail price.
In the interest of being good neighbors , a company executive gave the mill a below wholesale rate for enough power to get him through his pinch..
That event occurred in the 1930's when the depression taught businessmen the ethic 'you can only extract a small part of every dollar passing through your hands else you overload the moneymaking machine and it grinds to a halt. '
It was related to me by my mentor, who'd done the footwork at direction of that executive (both long since dead).
He was giving me that lesson about business ethics I've mentioned before - in exchange for a monopoly you incur the moral obligation to watch out for your customers' money, and your shareholders have to settle for modest but reliable dividends. He said to me: "Jim this current crop of executives doesn't understand that. They're going to wreck the industry. "
The best deal for the consumer is a benevolent monopoly, it avoids the bureaucracy and corporate raiding. Problem is keeping them benevolent.
Not long after my mentor's lecture the electric industry got deregulated to "promote competition" and the debatably 'benevolent monopolies' were no more.
We reap what we sow.
If it isn't run with bona fide good faith it's going to crash.
That's my simplistic view .

So you see, the economic and political trajectory distorts the market and results in small users subsidising the inefficient bureaucracy and corporate multinational industries. PV and lower cost battery storage is now riding into town, just in time to save us from the grid, from the bureaucracy and from the multinationals.

Well, I'm a big fan of Northcote Parkinson and the fun he pokes at bureaucracy. Even Gorbachev quotes Parkinson.
Bureaucracy is what kills economy of scale. Central stations for energy conversion can support a lot of it, though.
I'm also involved in a wind power project. It got me looking at who's funding such things. Multinationals are big into US renewables because of the tax breaks and I'm astonished at the amount and diversity of European investment here. Maybe it's considered a "safe haven" , or just a tax dodge i don't know.

At the DIY scale there's truth in what you say , but i think not on a nationwide scale. Multinationals are already in there.
Look at Anorlunda's #54. That's a lot of money . Just how altruistic is this renewables push ?

Rambling i know - this is how i come to understand other people's perspectives.
Thanks for your observations !

old jim

 

[Salvador]

i think the message here as elsewhere is plain and simple , much like with the law and criminals , you can have the best security and laws in the world as long as there will be people who will put all their effort and their own lives to make fortune on the work that other people have done nothing can stop that , in other words if someone is determined to be that way he will be.
The same goes for renewables sadly , as with every new thing that comes into the market made possible by new tech and science at first people have this enthusiasm they feel like it's going to change the whole picture and suddenly make the world brand new , (remember the enthusiasm about nuclear power in the 50's?)
But guess what you can't build a new and good house on the old rotten fundament , those people and corporations that control the most of today's world energy sector and business will use and are already using all that is in their power to also keep the same business with the new technology , I doubt the energy companies are going like " Oh cool let's make the consumers independent from us and then we all live a happy life"

My thinking is this , unless we will come up with some really new and potent technology that allows one to have a " pandoras box" in his backyard producing all the power he needs until that moment we will still be somewhat dependent on big corporations giving us what we need for a price that is unfair.
Yes some larger households and farmers with more money and area can have the beauty of solar energy giving them the lions share of their house electricity bill and maybe with wind too and maybe even with biomass and cogeneration as some have done here which I know.But in all cases to install these products requires quite some cash and most people don't have it nor they have the location to build them.The only thing I myself could afford in any real time is solar panels , but given my geographical location I have little use for them.

 

[CalcNerd]

But the existing road surface is elastic. The wheel rolls in a depression. The force on the front of the wheel is balanced against the force on the rear of the wheel. If you extract some energy, it is no longer elastic, the forces do not balance and so it costs more in fuel. If you extract energy from the roadway you must supply all that energy by using more fuel.

Consider covering the road surface with piezo transducers, but do not connect the terminals. It is elastic, has balanced forces and is efficient. If you then connect the terminals and extract some energy, all that extracted energy comes from your vehicle tank or battery.

I suspect I owe Balucore an apology. This may very well also be happening to the piezoelectric road surface and it would indeed be robbing energy from the vehicle if the effect of compression is measurable in any way. I am not sure of how elastic the surface of these roadways are. The effect would be small, but even a small effect would have a detrimental effect on mileage as Balucore surmises.

 

[anorlunda]

This may very well also be happening to the piezoelectric road surface and it would indeed be robbing energy from the vehicle if the effect of compression is measurable in any way.

If you stick with the principle that there is no free lunch when dealing with energy, then you'll almost never go wrong. Even better, without even looking at the details of a proposal you may be able to eliminate it instantly and effortlessly if you find that it would violate the free lunch principle.

Free lunch and perpetual motion are different ways to say the same thing.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Don't forget that the heating of well traveled roads that causes melting of ice would likely still occur with piezo roads. Just because you have wasted energy in the form of heat on roadways does not mean that if you concoct some way of extracting energy from said roadways that this will guarantee you eliminate this loss.

 

[Salvador]

tires on tarmac have a rather high friction so that + some vibrations with I 'm not sure what frequency probably causes the road to heat up , since transforming heat to electricity is such a pain and very inefficient.
Also as we advance newer cars have better suspensions which again tend to mitigate unwanted oscillations in the suspension and we all want smooth good new roads and you would probably not dig up an old road full of holes just to leave it that way so that these holes and rough riding combined give you some power output.
This I assume is one of those things were one doesn't need to calculate to see it's a dead end.

 

[mheslep]

Can we dispense with the solar or piezo roads discussion? It's crackpottery. No evidence at all that the road shear and compression and environmental requirements have been analyzed, much less demonstrated. Instead, a request for funding is presented.

 

[OrangeDog]

If you stick with the principle that there is no free lunch when dealing with energy, then you'll almost never go wrong. Even better, without even looking at the details of a proposal you may be able to eliminate it instantly and effortlessly if you find that it would violate the free lunch principle.

Free lunch and perpetual motion are different ways to say the same thing.

I want free lunch

 

[OrangeDog]

Can we dispense with the solar or piezo roads discussion? It's crackpottery. No evidence at all that the road shear and compression and environmental requirements have been analyzed, much less demonstrated. Instead, a request for funding is presented.

You need money to do the studies to collect the data to report the results to collect money to build the roads.

 

[Baluncore]

Can we dispense with the solar or piezo roads discussion? It's crackpottery.

Yes. The piezo roads sub-topic can be dispensed with now. I was sorry that I needed to push it, but it was the principle of CalcNerd getting a free lunch, while I had to pay for mine.
The noise and heat aspects fall under the topic of waste energy recovery. It usually costs less to prevent the loss in the first place than to recover it once it has escaped.

Efficiency dividends in the consumer community can minimise the total size of installed generator plant. We must continuously evaluate the cost over time of implementing a 1% efficiency gain as opposed to building another 1% generation capacity.

The best deal for the consumer is a benevolent monopoly, it avoids the bureaucracy and corporate raiding. Problem is keeping them benevolent.

I want to start a co-operative energy company composed of all the people of this state. The co-op will then buy the hydroelectric and distribution network that the people have already built and paid for, from the politicians who think it is a saleable asset owned by their “government”. The co-op can then cut out the sweetheart deals being done behind closed doors between government and big business. The co-op could also set realistic costs for energy sales to the cable and industrial users.

That event occurred in the 1930's when the depression taught businessmen the ethic 'you can only extract a small part of every dollar passing through your hands else you overload the moneymaking machine and it grinds to a halt. '

I model the economy as an oscillator with circulating money. There needs to be sufficient gain in the system to overcome the taxation and losses, or the oscillation will collapse. We can easily identify the losses in the financial oscillator, but it is much harder to find the fundamental source of the gain. That gain seems to be the availability of energy from our environment. Solar energy through PV is one such source of gain that might help keep the system rolling along. There are many others.

 

[Old Tele man]

Just for the "record," remember that Arizona annually experiences a summertime "monsoon" (mid-July through end-September) with sudden, abrupt, dark/cloudy skies, raining "cats & dogs," at exactly the same time that A/C-units are running most. That kinda shoots the heck out of "planned" load distributions to OTHER localities!