I have solar power. Do you?

Saw this article today, thought it was interesting and it relates to this thread:

"An Australian power grid larger than the UK is being dismantled as remote farmers go solar"

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

Just so everyone knows where I am coming from, I consider Solar as one of several energy sources that are part of the grid. We still need fossil fuels.

syscom3 said:

Just so everyone knows where I am coming from, I consider Solar as one of several energy sources that are part of the grid. We still need fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

The answer to our energy needs is, and always has been, "All of the Above." I have a light powered hand calculator that I just love, but I'd hate to have to use that energy source for everything. The same thing is true of every power source I have, from coil-sized batteries to hand crank generators to the 4KW power generator out in the garage to those receptacle
in the wall.

The local power company did something downright silly. They tore down the old coal fired power plant and replaced it with a modern one, natural gas powered, and with fuel oil backup, based on those huge storage tanks they have nearby. And then they installed a solar power system to run the lights in the power plant. What do you suppose happens to the lights when the Sun goes down? I'll bet they are not running on Solar power!

Hey MIflyer,

They may have installed Fuel Cell units to store any excess energy from the solar cells, to be used at night. If you get a chance look for boxy things like below:

ThomasP said:

They may have installed Fuel Cell units to store any excess energy from the solar cells, to be used at night. If you get a chance look for boxy things like below:

Click to expand...

Yes, that certainly is entirely feasible. But why do so if it is nothing but a silly Public Relations stunt? Solar power at a huge power plant could hardly be anything else.

Recently the same power company announced that everyone with electric service - including people who run their homes on solar power - must pay for at least 239 KWH of electricity, whether they used any or not. At my airplane hangar that means my bill went from $16 a month for about 35 KWH used to at least $31 a month. I may as well leave the lights on in the place. 24/7.

It is possible that it is just a publicity stunt. However, there are 2 other possible reasons I can think of:

1. The solar powered lighting may be attractive due to the need for an UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) system. If there is such a need and you therefore decide to use Fuel Cell units, then solar power for lighting and other such systems might be worth it over the long term. The ability to recharge the Fuel Cells and the relative reliability and low maintenance requirements could be the attraction.

2. The learning curve with new systems may make it advisable to operate such systems. Solar Cell and Fuel Cell systems are becoming more common, and the power companies will need to learn how to manage the problems associated with the new technologies and applications/systems.

Fuel cells aren't energy storage devices; they are energy production devices, converting fuel into electrical energy. They have been used for back-up power and utility power for decades.

I confess that I do not know all the workings of the different types of Fuel Cells. But I was told that some Fuel Cell systems can use electrolysis to crack the water end product produced by the Fuel Cell (turning the water back into H2 and O2). Some Fuel Cell systems use Solar Power generated electricity to do so.

In effect, some of the electrical energy generated by the Solar Cells is stored as chemical energy in the separated H2 and O2.

While the cracking of the water into H2 and O2 is relatively energy intensive, continuous low level production from a free energy source such as Solar Power can make it cost effective. The H2 and O2 can then be compressed into more storable/transportable high density form (ie liquid or high pressure gas) and used to replenish the Fuel Cell.

Is this incorrect?

ThomasP said:

I confess that I do not know all the workings of the different types of Fuel Cells. But I was told that some Fuel Cell systems can use electrolysis to crack the water end product produced by the Fuel Cell (turning the water back into H2 and O2). Some Fuel Cell systems use Solar Power generated electricity to do so.

In effect, some of the electrical energy generated by the Solar Cells is stored as chemical energy in the separated H2 and O2.

While the cracking of the water into H2 and O2 is relatively energy intensive, continuous low level production from a free energy source such as Solar Power can make it cost effective. The H2 and O2 can then be compressed into more storable/transportable high density form (ie liquid or high pressure gas) and used to replenish the Fuel Cell.

Is this incorrect?

Click to expand...

That is correct and a lot of work is being done to use an upscale method to produce large amounts of hydrogen from electrolysis and other ways as well.

The other method being seriously worked on is to use ammonia as it is made from hydrogen and nitrogen. It is already made for fertilisers to the tune of
160 million tons per year but is generally made using gas or oil. Other methods are now being used which will use solar powered or maybe wind powered
electrolysis to produce hydrogen and mix it with nitrogen separated from air.

The advantage of ammonia is it is easy to ship in large volumes and the infrastructure to do so is already in place. The ultimate aim is to then split the
hydrogen out of the ammonia and release the nitrogen as close as possible to outlets (fuel stations for instance). There is a future for hydrogen fuel
cells as they are emission free and allow larger vehicles in particular to have a strong power system without the massive weight of batteries (a 20 ton
delivery truck would require batteries in the order of several tons which lowers the amount of cargo it could carry without exceeding it's legal gross
weight).

Electrolysis from memory requires 39kw for one hour to produce 1kg (2.2 pounds) of hydrogen. This gives a mid size fuel cell car enough energy to go
110 km (68 miles). The Toyota somethingorother carries 5.6kg in it's tanks so it can go around 600km (380 miles) which is pretty good. Fuel cells can
be 95% recycled and are rated as being good for 250000 to 300000 km (156000 to 180000 miles) so not bad as long as hydrogen can be made available
at a good price. Given that any country can actually produce hydrogen from water there are distinct possibilities. Personally, I would like a decent 5kw
system to run my home.

Thanks for the info.

The normal process for producing Hydrogen gas is to shoot some hot hydrocarbon gas at water.

Using current commercially available technology, compressed H2 at 3000 PSI requires a pressure tank about 3 feet long and 18 in wide, weighing about 100 lb empty, to hold the equivalent energy to 2 gal of gasoline.

Toyota has improved on the capacity and pressure of the storage tanks with two tanks holding 5.6 kg with the hydrogen at 10000 psi.
The energy stored per kilo is the same as 1 gallon of fuel (petrol/gasoline) with the electric motor efficiency being higher than that of
an internal combustion engine.

A mix of battery and fuel cell systems is what the entire transport industry is looking at. Cost is still a big factor in both types.

MIflyer said:

Yes, that certainly is entirely feasible. But why do so if it is nothing but a silly Public Relations stunt? Solar power at a huge power plant could hardly be anything else.

Recently the same power company announced that everyone with electric service - including people who run their homes on solar power - must pay for at least 239 KWH of electricity, whether they used any or not. At my airplane hangar that means my bill went from $16 a month for about 35 KWH used to at least $31 a month. I may as well leave the lights on in the place. 24/7.

Click to expand...

Damn! That sounds like some BS, where do you live?

I realize there is a very real issue for a lot of electricity companies that they have to manage simultaneously- dramatically increasing demand from some customers that more power for heat or cooling in the rapidly changing weather, and dramatically decreasing demand from others (that go off grid). There was an article recently about Australian farmers going off grid and it's leading to the collapse of a regional energy network.


This is the sort of thing I believe we have to pay close attention to. I understand these companies want to make money but I don't think we should be put on the hook for their networks becoming obsolete as people go offline. There is already pressure here to stop people from going off-grid within the city where I live. I gather in some places they are starting to charge exhorbitant rates to charge EV's now. The solution is for more people to off grid solar with battery backup, if possible. (or some other means of generating power). But that is going to happen in fits and starts and there will be economic "casualties" without a doubt.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Damn! That sounds like some BS, where do you live?

Click to expand...

What state do you live in?

At the moment, North Carolina.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I realize there is a very real issue for a lot of electricity companies that they have to manage simultaneously- dramatically increasing demand from some customers that more power for heat or cooling in the rapidly changing weather, and dramatically decreasing demand from others (that go off grid). There was an article recently about Australian farmers going off grid and it's leading to the collapse of a regional energy network.

An Australian power grid larger than the UK is being dismantled as remote farmers go solar

An ambitious project to take thousands of West Australian properties off-grid is taking shape. Here's how farmers are finding their new solar power systems.

www.abc.net.au

This is the sort of thing I believe we have to pay close attention to. I understand these companies want to make money but I don't think we should be put on the hook for their networks becoming obsolete as people go offline. There is already pressure here to stop people from going off-grid within the city where I live. I gather in some places they are starting to charge exhorbitant rates to charge EV's now. The solution is for more people to off grid solar with battery backup, if possible. (or some other means of generating power). But that is going to happen in fits and starts and there will be economic "casualties" without a doubt.

Click to expand...

WA is a different in that the electricity grid is owned and run by the state government.

One interesting snippet is that some coal generation has been closed and we have been warned to expect possible blackouts during
the summer as there isn't enough coal available. This is weird considering how much coal is in Australia and we can't let our grid
suffer in any way as we are too far away from other states power generation facilities to interconnect.

I couldn't quite parse all that.

But I would say in general, it's far better for the state to regulate the energy company than for it to be privatized. At least with the state you have some oversight and can pressure the political leaders to fire people and force them to act in your interest if things go too far off the rails. I have seen the service decline precipitously in places after privatization. In one city I lived, both the state and local power companies were government run, but were then privatized in the 90s. Subsequent to that, they basically stopped doing maintenance for example on electrical transmission towers and power poles, and keeping tree branches away from the poles and so on. They did built some new plants, which they claimed were for extra power, but this turned out to be specifically to sell power to nearby (very poor) states when they were at peak power consumption, so that they could charge enormous rates. When there was a massive regional power outage, it turned out the new plants were not even connected to the local grid.

I'd say if you still need to burn coal to keep the lights on, then do it. It's absurd to endure blackouts in the 21st Century in the US or any other ostensibly "first world" nation. But we should not let the development of alternative energy sources be blocked by energy or power companies who see it as a rival. There is an inherent conflict between some of these firms and people who want to go off grid or to create a decentralized ('co-generating') grid. Power companies will invest in massive solar farms or wind turbine parks to send power across the transmission lines to towns and factories miles away, but this really isn't the most efficient way to do it, and the power-lines themselves are vulnerable to weather problems and can cause problems of their own (like starting massive forest fires) which then lead to lawsuits that may make the big power company unviable in the long run.

The technology to power your own home or business is just coming into reach now, if you have the money it's in reach already. I personally think we should do more of that. The case in that article from Australia is a good example, ultimately these big networks created in the early 20th Century are becomming somewhat obsolete. Maybe not completely, but certainly to some extent especially as relates to individual homes.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I couldn't quite parse all that.

But I would say in general, it's far better for the state to regulate the energy company than for it to be privatized. At least with the state you have some oversight and can pressure the political leaders to fire people and force them to act in your interest if things go too far off the rails. I have seen the service decline precipitously in places after privatization. In one city I lived, both the state and local power companies were government run, but were then privatized in the 90s. Subsequent to that, they basically stopped doing maintenance for example on electrical transmission towers and power poles, and keeping tree branches away from the poles and so on. They did built some new plants, which they claimed were for extra power, but this turned out to be specifically to sell power to nearby (very poor) states when they were at peak power consumption, so that they could charge enormous rates. When there was a massive regional power outage, it turned out the new plants were not even connected to the local grid.

I'd say if you still need to burn coal to keep the lights on, then do it. It's absurd to endure blackouts in the 21st Century in the US or any other ostensibly "first world" nation. But we should not let the development of alternative energy sources be blocked by energy or power companies who see it as a rival. There is an inherent conflict between some of these firms and people who want to go off grid or to create a decentralized ('co-generating') grid. Power companies will invest in massive solar farms or wind turbine parks to send power across the transmission lines to towns and factories miles away, but this really isn't the most efficient way to do it, and the power-lines themselves are vulnerable to weather problems and can cause problems of their own (like starting massive forest fires) which then lead to lawsuits that may make the big power company unviable in the long run.

The technology to power your own home or business is just coming into reach now, if you have the money it's in reach already. I personally think we should do more of that. The case in that article from Australia is a good example, ultimately these big networks created in the early 20th Century are becomming somewhat obsolete. Maybe not completely, but certainly to some extent especially as relates to individual homes.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree with all that. Privatisation of the power grid allows foreign ownership to creep in. Water, electricity supply, communications systems should be
closely controlled by government as that is part of their job rather than making a profit or selling stuff off to fund ongoing projects which will eventually become
liabilities.

It is indeed absurd for countries with a functional power grid to start shutting parts down just to enforce alternatives when the alternatives are not in place. Worse
still, some of the alternatives may be called renewable but are also unreliable. I constantly see references to 'this new wind project has the capacity to power
so many thousand homes'. The real question is - how many wind turbines does it take to power one home when the wind is not blowing ?

The excuse of not being able to build later generation nuclear power stations because it takes 10 years and we have to do something now is one I have been
hearing for the last thirty years. For example, Australia could have replaced all coal fired power with nuclear by now (we only have 16 coal fired plants running
by the way). That would already be a 30% emission cut (CO2 only counted here).

The issue of intermittency is a problem for most "renewable" types of energy as they call it, sometimes the sun doesn't shine for a while, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Even the hydro power runs into problems when the rain doesn't fall for a long time, as we are seeing now. I guess the only type that is pretty much consistent is geothermal like they have in Norway. Or maybe tidal power but I don't see that in place anywhere yet.

The solution is power storage, which didn't really exist (clumsy arrays of deep cell marine batteries ain't efficient to say the least). But that is where part of the breakthrough has been. Now we have the lithium batteries and larger scale wind / solar systems have other types as well. Storage is still a bit of a problem but it's decreasing, especially on the scale of the homeowner. Now it's just a matter of money.

I see two big issues with nuclear, aside from the waste issue which already gets a lot of discussion. One is the cost, cost per kw / hour has been going down dramatically for solar.

On a purely non ideological / pragmatic level, for the home, solar was a nice idea but way too expensive when I was a kid. It just wasn't practical. Today, solar power generation is cheap and cost effective. On the storage side it's harder. The batteries are still expensive but they too are becoming more affordable. Tesla Powerwall is kind of the ultimate for convenience and 'hands-off' reliability, and if anything it has gone up in price. But I know a lot of people in the Gulf Coast region who live in hurricane prone areas where they get prolonged outages due to storms, and up in the northwest where they get outages because of forest fires. Places like Texas and parts of California where the grid is struggling.



In the last few years, many of these people and I myself have acquired or put together low cost solar backup systems with cheaper lithium battery systems, so as to have power to run a fan, run a modem, charge phones, lights, keep a freezer from thawing out, run a small AC unit for sleeping and so on. I use mine to keep my aquariums running during a long power outage. Solar is basically your go-to for that kind of thing now. You can even keep panels inside your home and put them out after a storm to generate needed power.

By contrast nuclear is expensive, and it's also fragile. And that's my second issue with it.

The nuclear plant can keep generating power, but the current types of plants don't generate their own running power. This was the issue with Fukushima leading to the catastrophe there and is currently an issue with the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine which has that facility under risk. I'll circle back to that one. The other issue is that the power still has to be transmitted. I have friends and family down in the Gulf Coast area where they have several nuclear power plants. It does them little good after a storm because the grid has to be put back together before they can get any power. And the plants themselves are highly vulnerable.

The Waterford 3 plant has had three serious events requiring shut downs in the last 20 years. In 2005 they shut it down after Katrina. The offsite power was knocked out for a long time, and there was a flood risk but because of the direction the storm took they were able to keep the plant from being flooded and were able to keep the generators supplied. In 2011 they had to shut it down again for almost a month due to the Mississippi river floods and had difficulty getting fuel in to the generators, but they again sorted it out. And then most recently last year after Hurricane Ida, they lost power and had to shut down again and declare an emergency. Basically the electrical network was knocked out in the area for several weeks, but they were able to truck in fuel for the generators.

If this plant or hundreds like it in areas where, as much of the region was after many recent storms, the power was out for a sustained period and the roads were impassible, they would not be able to keep the fuel rods cool and there would be a very serious incident. In Louisiana, after Katrina, Gustav, Rita, Nicholas, Claudette, and Ida there were extensive areas where the power was out for several weeks and the roads were impassable, they just got lucky that it didn't hit right where the Waterford plant is or one of the other three plants in that area. If, god forbid, the plant got flooded, as could also quite easily happen during a big hurricane or river flood event, they would basically have a meltdown ala Fukushima. And Waterford is just one plant. There are 54 nuclear power plants around the US. Waterford 3 is one of two on the Mississippi river in Louisiana, there is a big one (Grand Gulf) on the river in Mississippi, two on the coast in Alabama, two on the coast in Texas, and four on the coast in South Florida (thank god on the opposite side from where Ian just hit). All of these are vulnerable to hurricanes. Many of the others around the country are in areas which are exposed to the increasingly turbulent weather (floods, fires, storms). To me this is an issue.

If somebody's solar panels get flooded, or torn off their roof by the wind, it's a problem for them but not for all their neighbors. And after the storm passes by, if they are lucky enough that their house is intact, they will have power and they won't have to go out and buy fuel, or rely on the city gas system. It just works, so long as the sun shines.