Can anyone find numbers on concentrating solar? They do have the advantage of being able to store heat for overnight or cloudy period generation as well. The linked Wikipedia article in Rhare’s post (#94) quotes an NREL estimate of about $.055/Kw hr by 2020, but I bet that would increase if the price of oil and raw materials went way up. Of course costs in cloudier and cooler climates would be significantly higher. I don’t know which would be better, producing cheaply in the desert and sending the electricity long distance or producing it less cheaply nearby. In either case, there’s a huge investment required to make a dent in total energy consumption in the time frame required to replace oil - power towers, transmission, electric cars, etc.
As for forecasting, we use Numerical Weather Prediction models similar to those used by the National Weather Service. We then use a customized statistical package to remove as many of the model systematic errors as possible.
Steve
Well,
Concerning PV, and solar heating - (for both domestic hot water and home heating), I still contend that “local” is the way to go. Meaning, I contend that we already have most if not all of the “grid” that we need. We also already have enough computing power to interface the idea.
-
EVERY home currently being build should be REQUIRED to have a solar domestic hot water system installed along with a alternative heating source (gas/electric/oil) as back up. That would immediately lower the price of said units to the point where they would be compatible with current systems and plumbers would no longer be able to charge outrageous prices to install them. Then, when the unit price declines to the point existing folks can afford them, the units would be replaced in short order. I know, I know, the detractors would say, “what happens on cloudy days, night time… blah, blah, blah. The system will only account for 20-30% of the need.” OK there is an immediate 20% savings.
-
PV panels. Same thing. I cannot speak to how large of a system would be needed for each house but lets say the current cost of $20K per home would be needed. They would be tied back into the grid. Again, lets say this time we would be looking at a 10% decrease in “conventional” electric use. In households where folks are not home during the day, the excess electric would be returned to the grid where it would be used commercially and the homeowner gets a break on their bill.
I really should “do the math” on this one but I am sure that some Poindexter somewhere has already done it… I just need to find it.
See I think we should be looking bigger by providing a local solution. It makes no sense to send electricity hundreds of miles from where it is made to where it is used. That ability should be used to send excess capacity to areas that need it. Or, follow the sun if you will.
I realize that there is NO political will to make the idea happen. There is also no commercial will do do it either.
If we would have listened to Jimmy Carter in the '70s this conversation would not be happening.
C.
The REQUIRED part is an issue. We already have politicians through their “requirements” selecting which companies and technologies will be the winners. What happens when they are wrong? What if PV and currently available DHW systems are not the best solution? What if smaller solar towers to heat water for a neighbourhood would be better? What about other technologies? What if it’s still cheaper and better to generate the power a long ways off and ship it? You are making an assumption that local is better? My guess is yes, but it’s not a sure thing.
Instead what we need to do is stop subsidizing anything, including oil, gas, nuclear,… That includes the hidden subsidy of free money (inflation is not only a hidden tax). Then technologies would compete on a level playing field and I believe we would have a much better situation.
We only have to look at the ethanol debacle for a good example of this in practice. The PV solution is also massively subsidized, so what other start-ups with great ideas have been squashed by the politicians of the world promoting their political contributors?
A true leader could lead the country in the right direction without having to require anything. Alas, we have no leaders at the top, only self interested parasites.
[quote=MarkM]A true leader could lead the country in the right direction without having to require anything. Alas, we have no leaders at the top, only self interested parasites.
[/quote]
Any leader would quickly be compromised in one way or another. And if not compromised, then obstructed by all means by vested interests.
I will probably vote for Ron Paul again. And again, it’s likely we won’t see him win.
Poet
You know if we did go back to the Artilcles of Confederation at least we could stop the endless wars. 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF01Ak01.html
Humpty Obumpty and the Arab Spring By Spengler I've been warning for months that Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and other Arab oil-importing countries face a total economic meltdown (see Food and failed Arab states, Feb 2, and The hunger to come in Egypt, May 10). Now the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has confirmed my warnings. The leaders of the industrial nations waited until last weekend's Group of Eight (G-8) summit to respond, and at the initiative of United States President Barack Obama proposed what sounds like a massive aid program but probably consists mainly of refurbishing old programs. The egg has splattered, and all of Obumpty's horses and men can't mend it. Even the G-8's announcement was fumbled; Canada's Prime Minister John Harper refused to commit new money, a dissonant note that routine diplomatic preparation would have pre-empted. The numbers thrown out by the IMF are stupefying. "In the current baseline scenario," wrote the IMF on May 27, "the external financing needs of the region's oil importers is projected to exceed $160 billion during 2011-13." That's almost three years' worth of Egypt's total annual imports as of 2010. As of 2010, the combined current account deficit (that is, external financing needs) of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia was about $15 billion a year. What the IMF says, in effect, is that the oil-poor Arab economies - especially Egypt - are not only broke, but dysfunctional, incapable of earning more than a small fraction of their import bill. The disappearance of tourism is an important part of the problem, but shortages of fuel and other essentials have had cascading effects throughout these economies.
[quote=RNcarl]Concerning PV, and solar heating - (for both domestic hot water and home heating), I still contend that “local” is the way to go. Meaning, I contend that we already have most if not all of the “grid” that we need. We also already have enough computing power to interface the idea.1. EVERY home currently being build should be REQUIRED to have a solar domestic hot water system installed along with a alternative heating source (gas/electric/oil) as back up. That would immediately lower the price of said units to the point where they would be compatible with current systems and plumbers would no longer be able to charge outrageous prices to install them. Then, when the unit price declines to the point existing folks can afford them, the units would be replaced in short order. I know, I know, the detractors would say, “what happens on cloudy days, night time… blah, blah, blah. The system will only account for 20-30% of the need.” OK there is an immediate 20% savings.
2. PV panels. Same thing. I cannot speak to how large of a system would be needed for each house but lets say the current cost of $20K per home would be needed. They would be tied back into the grid. Again, lets say this time we would be looking at a 10% decrease in “conventional” electric use. In households where folks are not home during the day, the excess electric would be returned to the grid where it would be used commercially and the homeowner gets a break on their bill.[/quote]
I totally concur with Carl… It should also be required that all new buildings be designed and built so as to maximise the efficiency of all such installations. Not only is “doing the right thing” cheap to do in the first instance, it saves you dough, for as long as the technology keeps working.
Our last power bill was… drum roll… $535 in CREDIT! Said bill says we currently consume just 2.2kWh/day, in WINTER! As I sit here at my 25W laptop, it’s 8:30 am and maybe 8C outside, whilst it’s a balmy 20C inside. The sun’s shining through every single window on the N side of our (S hemisphere) house, reheating the place in readiness for tonight’s cold temperature…
How sustainability sucks…
Mike
Of course you do, it’s the progressive way! It’s quite the arrogant attitude don’t you think? Instead of working to remove the government distortion field and help others to reach the same conclusion about our current path as those of us her at CM.com have come to realize, it much better to just use the government to force people to our way of thinking? Sorry, not for me. It also may be highly counter productive since you may be squashing really good ideas in forcing people down a centrally planned path.
At any rate, I see you have quite the welfare for the rich going on in Australia in the form of PV subsidies. Don’t misunderstand, I’m suckling from the government forced teat just as much, I just don’t think it’s the right way to make the change. But I do have to thank everyone for paying for my 60 kWh/day habit. Now for the real kicker, because people like you thought “requiring” the utility to meet some “green” objectives, I’m about 3x better off consuming even more power (using all that I generate) than I am providing it back to the grid. Yep, I’m incentivised to consume more! Gotta love those greenies and their use of government force!
One final thought - you’d better be careful advocating the government forcing people to behave the way you think they should, one of these days you may find yourself on the otherside being forced to do something against your will.
[quote=steveyoung]Can anyone find numbers on concentrating solar? They do have the advantage of being able to store heat for overnight or cloudy period generation as well. The linked Wikipedia article in Rhare’s post (#94) quotes an NREL estimate of about $.055/Kw hr by 2020, but I bet that would increase if the price of oil and raw materials went way up. Of course costs in cloudier and cooler climates would be significantly higher. I don’t know which would be better, producing cheaply in the desert and sending the electricity long distance or producing it less cheaply nearby. In either case, there’s a huge investment required to make a dent in total energy consumption in the time frame required to replace oil - power towers, transmission, electric cars, etc.
As for forecasting, we use Numerical Weather Prediction models similar to those used by the National Weather Service. We then use a customized statistical package to remove as many of the model systematic errors as possible.
[/quote]
I can’t add much about the cost, but I do feel a lot more comfortable with simple solar panels, than anything that requires large installations…
About forecasting, I guess for a few hours in advance we need to go full NWP, but for < 1 hour, I think images could give us enough information… It may become one of my future research topic, who knows
Samuel
Large does not necessarily imply more complexity. For instance a solar power tower may be simpler and less problematic that say a field of a million solar panels and the inverters, cleaning requirements, etc. You really have to look at the cost/energy provided (kWh). The less complex solution should be the cheaper solution in the long run.
Solar PV's survival test
This was a near five-fold increase from the previous year. Most analysts thought it would be difficult to better that number in 2011, but as the various state and territory governments are finding, to their surprise, demand is still increasing. It’s estimated that more than 350MW of rooftop PV has already been installed in the first five months of the year. Australia is now one of the world’s top 10 rooftop PV markets. The question is – what happens next?
Muriel Watt, chair of the Australian PV Association, last night presented some interesting predictions at the release of the APVA annual report. If the build-out continues at around the current rate, this would mean there would be more than 4.5GW of solar PV installed in the country by 2020 – the equivalent of the Latrobe Valley brown coal generators, and producing just as much – at least when the sun shines and when the load is at, or near, its peak.
The chances are, though, that this is a conservative estimate, particularly with module costs expected to fall further, retail electricity prices expected to rise, and with separate predictions that suggest large-scale solar PV utilities could provide nearly that much capacity on their own once they become cost-competitive with wind.
The costs of rooftop solar PV were little moved for nearly two decades, but the introduction of incentives in European countries and elsewhere, the rising costs of fossil fuels, and the emerging dominance of Chinese manufacturers has caused a dramatic slump in costs in the last few years.
The subsidies are working so well here (see my latest post about this just below) that they will almost certainly be withdrawn TWO YEARS ahead of schedule. The current subsidy is being reduced by 40% as of the end of this month instead of the scheduled 20… YOU work it out.
I find myself in this situation all the time. So what’s new?
Mike
I like damnthematrix’ ideas usually, but I gotta balk at this one. Forcing people to install solar paid for by extortion money? I can’t support any “help” that comes at gunpoint. The end does not justify the means.
How about survival of the fittest? Those that prepare, survive and thrive. Those that don’t, well, things will just work themselves out naturally. Seems harsh, but not as harsh as allowing the stupor of those around us drag us down with them.
Matrix, i really liked the your “countries as farms” video, been emailing it out to friends and relatives.
Gunpoint? Extortion money? Let’s get real here… Don’t you have building codes? Are they enforced “at gunpoint”?
Well then, let’s agree to disagree. IMHO, houses built today are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too big. Just think about how much dough everyone would save, how much less debt would be around, if people built houses half the size they currently have? Here, we put solar on our roof INSTEAD OF having a second bathroom and toilet. Period. This house is ~1500 sq ft, and whilst I love it, now I wish I’d built it smaller… I call it PRIORITIES. NOBODY needs two bathrooms. A lot of people on this Earth have NO bathrooms at all!!
Look, I agree loads of people won’t make it, that’s what happens in overshoot. But it doesn’t mean we should continue building crap housing. Like those blown away by your tornadoes. We had a 200PMH hurricane (and hurricanes last a lot longer than tornadoes) here the other months, and yes a few houses were destroyed, but most were not, and NOBODY died! NOBODY! That’s what happens when you have proper building codes. WHY is anyone allowed to build a house in Tornado Alley that can’t withstand the forces of those terrible things? THAT cost could also be absorbed into building smaller places too. Build smaller but much stronger… it can be done.
You’re welcome…
In The World After Abundance
Still, if it’s going to do any good, that awareness has to be paired with something more than a vague sense that action is necessary. Talk, as Zen masters are fond of saying, does not boil the rice; in the rather more formal language of the traditions of Western esotericism where I received a good deal of my training, the planes of being are discrete and not continuous, which means in practice that even the clearest sense of how we collectively backed ourselves into the present mess isn’t going to bring in food from the garden, keep warmth from leaking out of the house on a cold winter night, or provide a modest amount of electricity for those bits of modern or not-quite-modern technology that will still make sense, and still yield benefits, in the world after abundance.
That last phrase is the crucial one. In the future ahead of us, the extravagant habits of the recent past and the present will no longer be an option. Those habits include most of what people in the industrial world nowadays like to consider the basic amenities of a normal lifestyle, or even the necessities of life. An unwillingness to take a hard look at the assumptions underlying our current notion of what a normal lifestyle comprises has driven a certain amount of wishful thinking, and roughly the same amount of unnecessary dread, among those who have begun to grapple with the challenges ahead of us. <MORE>
Good article - (posting here instead of Daily Digest.)
Saudi’s current “break-even” oil price, at which its domestic budget balances, is now $85/barrel, according to the Washington-based Institute of International Finance, up from $68/barrel in 2010.
As recently as 2003, Saudi break-even was only $30/barrel. The IIF estimates break-even prices for Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, while having risen less than in Saudi, have also more than doubled over the same period. Demographic pressures mean the Saudi figure will spiral to $110 by 2015, says the IIF.
I assume the KSA “break-even” price is related to two factors, declining EROEI, and increased (subsidised) domestic use…
Curious to see how this plays out:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/161421/20110612/saudi-arabia-oil-opec.htm
…
[quote]
There are a number of reasons Saudi Arabia wants to produce more, including making more money, supporting Western economies, and preventing the West from turning to oil alternatives.
Oil production hawks like Iran, meanwhile, don’t want more production because they’re already producing near capacity. Therefore, they are incentivized to maximized oil prices at the current global production level.
So where will oil prices go from here?
It’s reasonable to assume it will fall in Saudi Arabia’s preferred range of $75 to $85 per barrel in the short-term.
Most other producers will keep production constant at their maximum capacity, which gives Saudi Arabia control over prices as the incremental and discretionary producer. It will likely take advantage of this position and adjust their production until prices drift to their desired level.
[quote=Ready]If crude does in fact head to $80, I’ll have to rethink my position a tad. I find it hard to believe they have that level of control.
[/quote]
Quite right, it’s either going over $100 or below $20 … whoops
Samuel
But can you really trust the Saudis? They never seem to come up with the extra production for long, and this new oil is sauer that they want to bring online offshore.