Comments on: Emissions tech tidbits

By: huggybunny

huggybunny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:43:50 +0000

Oh don’t get me started on grid infrastructure . Because the totally fuck-witted morons in the leading Solar Nation decided ” ve think zat current controlled inverters are ze vay to go yah?” (Guess where they came from ?) The inverters in universal use today actually seriously pollute the grid. They operate at unity power factor certainly but have a serious tendency to push the network voltage up. So bad has it become that now they have to shut down during the solar peak . Oh fucking derr – no wonder they lost the fucking war.
Huggy.

By: Chris (a different one)

Chris (a different one) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:26:56 +0000

Danny @ 49 – well it would certainly give a better return, but I think you see the take up rates of that sort of scheme much lower than for a residential PV system. At least part of the reason people do it is so they can publicly demonstrate that they are doing something. I’ve been thinking that these green power schemes need to give away bumper stickers and t-shirts so that people can brag a bit about their commitment.

There’s also a bit of the independence, anti-corporation thing, though unfortunately you still can’t use the power if the grid fails unless you install more sophisticated equipment. I know its argued that with enough residential PV we’d also save on grid infrastructure, but I’m yet to be convinced of that.

By: huggybunny

huggybunny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:19:32 +0000

Danny, fecken exactly: except that its even worse than you say, Its 10 MW installed which is equivalent to (let’s be generous) 2MW 0f conventional generation on an ACF basis. Some-one at treasury must have done the numbers and decided that spending $80 million to get 2MW of generation is an expensive joke.
Your idea for building large scale solar out in the desert in high insolation regimes is a very good one. Similar schemes have seen a massive investment in solar farms in Spain for example. These farms are multi MW and many use tracking PV. Vastly more cost effective than the individual rooftop systems.
Huggy

By: danny

danny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:35:27 +0000

“the population tends to cluster around the coast where the cloud cover is greatest”..
and so does the $8k/(theoretical, rated) 1 kW PV subsidy. Thus, with the $2k+ contribution by the punters, we get less than 1kW per $10k investment, so it will be more than $100 million per 10 effective megawatts generated.
On the other hand, what if there were Girt-By-Sea Green Bonds which so-inclined punters could invest their $2k stakes in, and attracting a similar $8K co-contribution, like happens with Super, which could be used to finance Sunburnt Country Utility-Scale Green Power installs, like the Cloncurry concentrated solar thermal one? It’s rated as 10MW, will be a $31 mill spend, ie at least a three fold more green bang for buck being delivered into the grid, delivering 2-3 kw for a notional $10k overall contribution.
I should be able to give Ergon, or Lloyd, a check for $2K, have the gummint kick in the extra $8k just like they do with PV, and I get my 2-3 kw allowence, however those units work. Dontcha think?

By: huggybunny

huggybunny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:21:34 +0000

Sorry. 12% ACF is the national average based upon population (including tassie). Longreach is about 24% ACF. 6 hours + for a fixed array… More of course for a tracking array.

One of the reasons for a poor average on a population basis is that the population tends to cluster around the coast where the cloud cover is greatest.

I mostly write these posts in between other tasks – that’s my excuse.

By: danny

danny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:48 +0000

HB: In your dystopic enthusiasm, which I’m happy to indulge, as long as it’s rigorous, are you sure you’re not pulling a few rhetorical swifties, such as:
You say coal ACF ->8400 hrs/yr = 96%, western qld solar-> ~12%, ie about an an eighth, and an eighth of 8400 hrs is about 1000 hrs/yr, which would be about 3 hrs per day, average, ball park.
Is that a worst case, for out in western queensland, where men are men, and sheep are ~~nervous~~ sunburnt, or are you just doing your best to support your arguement?

By: Yaz

Yaz — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:27:54 +0000

Huggy,
I suspected that was so. Perhaps it would be therapeutic for me to do the same from time to time too!
Must get back to tumble-drying my organic cotton sheets, with that lovely eco-fabric softener I bought last week…

By: Huggybunny

Huggybunny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:40:30 +0000

Yaz, we are basically in heated agreement here. Sorry about the Green bashing.
I admit to pandering to the most reactionary elements in society just to make funny. I really don’t mean all of it.
Huggy

By: Yaz

Yaz — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:23:34 +0000

Huggy,
I love your contributions but don’t understand the Green-bashing. As a Green myself I know we have our share of starry-eyed idealists, but we ain’t all that way. What gives?
I vote for a party who I think is likely to do the most they can about climate change. The Greens are that party for me.

More on thread, I agree about closing the solar plant in Sydney. We should more profitably be spending that money on the building industry, helping kick along some serious energy-efficiency measures. I won’t bang on about that any more than I ordinarily do, though…

By: Huggybunny

Huggybunny — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:39:49 +0000

PetrC I made an error; the installed base of PV in Australia is about .005% of the conventional base and about .000042% of the energy input. On a good day -often it is zero.