Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts

11 January 2012

Paul Robbins : Switching on the Sunshine

Flipping the switch at solar farm near Austin, Texas. Rag Blog photo.

Let the sunshine in:
On being young and crazy in Austin
They say that victory has 1,000 parents, but defeat is an orphan.
By Paul Robbins / The Rag Blog / January 11, 2012

AUSTIN -- On Friday, Jan. 6, Austin officially commissioned its new 30-megawatt solar plant. It is one of the largest solar installations in the U.S. Austin and the environmental community in particular should be proud of this accomplishment.

Located near the small town of Webberville at the eastern edge of Travis County, the "solar farm" consists of 127,780 photovoltaic panels mounted on tracking axes covering a site of 380 acres. It will provide electricity equal to that used in 5,500 average Austin homes. Ironically the site, owned by Austin Energy, the City's municipal public utility, was originally purchased in 1984 for a coal plant that was never built.

They say that victory has 1,000 parents, but defeat is an orphan. Many people will claim credit for this achievement. Many of them deserve it. However, the people left out of the celebration were the ones who had the original idea: the anti-nuclear activists of the 1970s.

Solar array at massive new solar farm in Webberville, Texas. Rag Blog photo.

We were mostly 20- and 30-somethings with the sun in our eyes, activists who wanted an alternative to a future of dangerous nuclear and coal plants. To the power structure of that generation, we were "crazy." We were sometimes ignored, other times ridiculed, occasionally even blacklisted or persecuted.

Our attempts to keep Austin out of the South Texas Nuclear Project -- ultimately unsuccessful when the City power structure stabbed student voters in the back -- were both epic struggles and advanced courses in political organizing.

And last Friday we won. Of about 200 people there, including all manner of press, I was the only member of the "original cast." It was a sunny winter day and people seemed festive. There were various props, including a yellow ribbon to cut and an official "light switch" to turn on, powering a (compact fluorescent) bulb.

The utility even had a special ride for attendees, who could don hardhats and safety harnesses to get an aerial view of the field from the bucket of a "cherry picker" electric line maintenance truck. We had to sign a release form.

Austin environmentalist and Rag Blog contributor Paul Robbins, shown with Shannon Halley, aide to Austin City Councilmember Kathy Tovo. Rag Blog photo.

I am including a few photos, like the one [above] of me in a hardhat next to Council aide Shannon Halley, who accompanied me in the bucket.

On the bus ride back, I thought about all the people I worked with in that era, the people who had the original vision, the people who went unrecognized. This was their victory too.

[Paul Robbins is an environmental activist and consumer advocate based in Austin, Texas. Read more articles by Paul Robbins on The Rag Blog.]

Links to news stories, with video:

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/380-acre-solar-farm-goes-online
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Officials-flip-switch-at-Webberville-Solar-Project-136845053.html
http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/282332/new-massive-solar-farm-to-feed-power-to-austin-homes


The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

03 August 2010

Harvey Wasserman : Pete Seeger Sings for Solartopia!



Pete Seeger sings for Solartopia!

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / August 3, 2010

See Video and Lyrics to 'God's Counting on Me,' Pete Seeger's song about the BP oil spill, Below.
"We've got a country full of ambitious people," Pete Seeger tells us. Solar energy is "something direct," a way to "pay our bills, not tomorrow, but today."

By "bills" Pete doesn't just mean the ones from the electric company. He's talking about the Big Bill, the one from Mother Nature.

At age 91, Pete is American folk activism's truest bard. It's no accident that Pete's new CD is Tomorrow's Children and that his new music video is for Solartopia!, a holistic, socially just, post-corporate vision of a green-powered Earth.

Solartopia, he says, "is the wonderful, positive way of approaching the problem" of a polluted planet. "Don't just say ‘don't, don't, don't.' Say ‘DO! DO! DO!'"

This spring, while finishing up Tomorrow's Children, he joined singer-songwriters Dar Williams and David Bernz in a Beacon studio filled with singing schoolkids, organized by local music educator Dan Einbender, who co-produced the album.

Pete's hometown, up the Hudson from Manhattan, is home to the Clearwater, the legendary sloop Pete has helped keep afloat to fight the pollution that's killing the great river -- and our planet. That includes fierce opposition to the Indian Point nuclear plant, a few miles down the river, now in a life-or-death legal battle over the hot water outtakes that kill millions of aquatic organisms every year.

Along with Solartopia!, Pete, David and the kids put some finishing touches on Turn! Turn! Turn!, one of Pete's great anthems. With its Biblical overtones, it still resonates with the aura of a generational hymn. The Byrds took it electric in the 1960s, but it lives on as a clarion call for a species on the brink.

Pete wrote Solartopia! in his solarized hand-built home, surrounded by woods, overlooking the river. Below the house, his battery-powered pickup quietly recharged from the panels on the rooftop.

With great optimism, I asked if he could possibly put this vision of a green-powered Earth to music. Without so much as a blink, he whipped out that magnificent banjo. In a matter of minutes -- forever golden in my soul -- he had the song.

Then singer-songwriter David Bernz, who co-produced Pete's previous Grammy-winning CD, wrote the verses. With award-winning filmmaker Dan Keller shooting in High-Def, and a dozen of Einbender's kids in joyous chorus, the video was born.

Pete's presence in the movement for a green-powered Earth has been as essential as it was in the days of Civil Rights (when he wrote We Shall Overcome ) and Vietnam.

In June, 1978, Pete came to Seabrook with Arlo Guthrie and Jackson Browne. To avoid potential mayhem involving thousands of peaceful marchers versus a wacky out-of-control New Hampshire governor named Meldrim Thomson, a deal was cut. Attorney-General Tom Rath agreed to stand by quietly while the Clamshell Alliance would enjoy a peaceful weekend on the construction site -- as long as we left on Sunday afternoon.

But who would show up? When Pete said he'd come with Arlo and Jackson, we had an event for the ages. It was America's biggest anti-nuclear gathering until the melt-down at Three Mile Island nine months later.

That was 30 years ago -- already a good four decades into Pete's career of activism and social change. Since then he's sung at countless concerts, benefits, marches, and gatherings aimed at shutting the nuclear industry and other polluters while bringing on a green-powered Earth.

For his 90th birthday party, last year, he packed Madison Square Garden with activists and fans, including Bruce Springsteen and a stage full of luminaries. The proceeds, of course, would go to support the Clearwater.

To have Pete now singing for a green-powered Earth, putting our movement once again to music, is enough to give us all hope in yet another "hopeless" movement against yet another "unbeatable" problem... until we dance again in Solartopia.

"Wind power, solar power," Pete says. "this is the most exciting time in the world to be living….There has never been such an exciting time."

[Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth is at solartopia.org as is Pete's new video. The song is on Pete's new CD, Tomorrow's Children.]
'God's Counting on Me':
Pete Seeger sings about the BP oil spill


On July 23th 2010 Pete Seeger performed live at a Gulf Coast Oil Spill fundraiser at The City Winery in New York City. There he unveiled to the public his new protest song about the BP oil spill entitled "God's Counting on Me, God's Counting on You." Backing up Pete's singing and banjo picking is the singer/songwriter James Maddock on acoustic guitar. All proceeds of this concert went to the Gulf Restoration Project. The show was produced and hosted by Richard Barone. The video was edited and mixed by Matthew Billy



(Pete Seeger on banjo; James Maddock on guitar.)

Lyrics:

When we look and we can see things are not what they should be
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
When we look and see things that should not be
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

And when drill, baby, drill turns to spill, baby, spill
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Yes when drill, baby, drill turns to spill, baby, spill
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

Don't give up don't give in, workin' together we all can win
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Don't give up don't give in, workin' together we all can win
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

Source / CommonDreams
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

25 June 2009

Solar Powered Flight: The Potential of Renewable Energies

Solar Impulse plane

Solar plane to make public debut
By Jonathan Amos / June 26, 2009

Swiss adventurer Bertrand Picard is set to unveil a prototype of the solar-powered plane he hopes eventually to fly around the world.

The initial version, spanning 61m but weighing just 1,500kg, will undergo trials to prove it can fly at night.

Mr Picard, who made history by circling the globe non-stop in a balloon in 1999, says he wants to demonstrate the potential of renewable energies.

He expects to make a crossing of the Atlantic in 2012.

The flight would be a risky endeavour. Only now is solar and battery technology becoming mature enough to sustain flight through the night - and then only in unmanned planes.

But Picard's Solar Impulse team has invested tremendous energy - and no little money - in trying to find what they believe is a breakthrough design.

"I love this type of vision where you set the goal and then you try to find a way to reach it, because this is challenging," he told BBC News.

Testing programme

The HB-SIA has the look of a glider but is on the scale - in terms of its width - of a modern airliner.

The aeroplane incorporates composite materials to keep it extremely light and uses super-efficient solar cells, batteries, motors and propellers to get it through the dark hours.



Picard will begin testing with short runway flights in which the plane lifts just a few metres into the air.

As confidence in the machine develops, the team will move to a day-night circle. This has never been done before in a piloted solar-powered plane.

HB-SIA should be succeeded by HB-SIB. It is likely to be bigger, and will incorporate a pressurised capsule and better avionics.

It is probable that Picard will follow a route around the world in this aeroplane close to the path he took in the record-breaking Breitling Orbiter 3 balloon - going from the United Arab Emirates, to China, to Hawaii, across the southern US, southern Europe, and back to the UAE.

Measuring success

Although the vehicle is expected to be capable of flying non-stop around the globe, Picard will in fact make five long hops, sharing flying duties with project partner Andre Borschberg.

"The aeroplane could do it theoretically non-stop - but not the pilot," said Picard.

"We should fly at roughly 25 knots and that would make it between 20 and 25 days to go around the world, which is too much for a pilot who has to steer the plane.

"In a balloon you can sleep, because it stays in the air even if you sleep. We believe the maximum for one pilot is five days."

The public unveiling on Friday of the HB-SIA is taking place at Dubendorf airfield near Zürich.

"The real success for Solar Impulse would be to have enough millions of people following the project, being enthusiastic about it, and saying 'if they managed to do it around the world with renewable energies and energy savings, then we should be able to do it in our daily life'."

Source / BBC News

Thanks to Deva Wood / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

16 June 2009

Why Wind Power Is a Viable Alternative


Click on graphs below to enlarge.

The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind
By Jerome Guillet and edited by Paul Spencer / June 2009

I'd like to try to clear some of the confusion that surrounds the economics of wind-based power generation systems, since opponents often try to use cherry-picked economic data to dismiss wind-power. As I noted recently, even the basic economics of energy markets are often willfully misunderstood by commentators, so it's worth going into more detail through concepts like levelised cost and marginal cost, in order to identify how the different impacts on electricity wholesale prices (which may or may not be reflected in retail prices) arise via different electricity-production systems.

Equally important, these different production systems present different externalities, or cost impacts that are not typically registered in standard financial accounting. Value of a power-generation source may also include other items that are harder to account in purely monetary terms (and/or whose very value may be disputed), such as the long term risk of depletion of the fuel, or energy security issues, such as dependency on unstable and/or unfriendly foreign countries or on vulnerable infrastructure. Depending on which concept you favor, your preferred energy policies will be rather different.

The usual disclosure: my job is to finance, among other energy projects, wind farms. My earlier articles on wind power can all be found here.

Costs

The cost of wind is, simply enough, what you actually need to spend to generate the electricity. The graph below shows how these costs have changed over the past decade: a long, slow decline as technology improved, followed, over the past 3 years, by an increase as the cost of commodities (in the case of wind, mainly steel) increased, and as strong demand for turbines allowed the manufacturers (or their subcontractors) to push up their prices:

Source: Economics of Wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


The most recent Energy Outlook by the International Energy Agency suggests that wind power currently costs €60/$80 per MWh, which makes it competitive with the major electricity-generation systems' (nuclear, coal, gas) costs:

Source: World Energy Outlook 2008 (available on order only).


In the case of wind, it is important to note that most of the costs are upfront. I.e., you spend money to manufacture and then to install the wind turbines (and to build the transmission line to connect to the grid, if necessary). Once this is done, there are very few other actual costs: some maintenance and some spare parts now and then.

This means that the levelised cost of wind (i.e., the average cost over the long run, when initial investment costs are spread out over the useful life of the wind turbines) is going to be highly dependent on the discount rate (the estimated amortization used to spread the initial cost of investment over each MWh – megawatt-hour – of production over the useful life of the wind turbine. This 'useful life' is determined both in terms of duration, and of the interest rate applied.) The graph below shows the sensitivity of the cost of wind depending on the discount rate used (over 20 years):

Source: Economics of wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


The discount rate is the cost of capital applied to the project, it will depend on whether you can find credit (whose price can depend on your credit rating), or whether you need to provide equity (which is usually more expensive). Altogether, this means that most of the revenue generated by a wind farm at any point during its lifespan will go to repay the initial investment rather than to actual short term production costs; moving the discount rate from 5% to 10% increases levelised costs by approximately 40% (whereas for a gas project, it would typically be less than 20%).

Source: the Economist, 2005. Note: this reflects price for gas at 3-4$/MBTU.


As a consequence, the marginal cost of wind is essentially zero; i.e., at a given point in time, it costs you nothing to produce an extra MWh (all you need is more wind). In contrast, the marginal cost of a gas-fired plant is going to be significant, as each new kWh requires some fuel input: this marginal cost is very closely related to the price of the supply of the volume of gas needed to produce that additional MWh.

The cost structure of wind and gas-fired power plants are completely different, as the graph above (from the Economist) shows: the Wind column includes mostly finance costs, the Gas column shows mostly fuel costs (with nuclear closer to the economics of wind, and coal closer to the economics of gas).

It is worth emphasizing that "letting the markets decide" is NOT a technology-neutral choice when it comes to investment in power generation: public funding (such as can be available to State-owned or municipal utilities) is cheaper than commercial fund of investment: given that different technologies have different sensitivities to the discount rate, preferring "market" solutions will inevitably favor fuel-burning technologies, while public investment would tilt more towards capital-intensive technologies like wind and nuclear.

This also means that, once the investment is made, the cost of wind is essentially fixed, while that of gas-fired electricity is going to be very variable, depending on the cost of the fuel. The good news for wind is that its cost is extremely predictable; the bad news is that it's not flexible at all, and cannot adjust to electricity price variations.

Or, more precisely, wind producers take the risk that prices may be lower than their fixed cost at any given time. Given that, as a zero-marginal-cost producer, the marginal cash flow is always better when producing than not; wind is fundamentally a "price-taker". I.e., the decision to produce will not depend on the price of fuel; however, the ability to repay the initial debt will depend on the level of the price of electricity. If prices are too low for too long, the wind farm may go bankrupt. Meanwhile, gas producers take a risk at any time on the relative position of the prices of gas and of electricity (what the industry calls the "spark spread"). This is a short term risk: gas-fired plants have the technical ability to choose to not produce (subject to relatively minor technical constraints) at any given time. They can thus avoid any cash flow losses, and the very fact that they shut down will influence both the gas price (by lowering demand) and the electricity price (by reducing supply). In fact, as we'll see in a minute, electricity prices are directly driven, most of the time, by gas prices. Thus gas-fired plants are "price-makers", and their costs drive electricity prices.

This suggests, once again, that selecting market mechanisms to set electricity prices (rather than regulating them) is, again, not technology neutral: here as well, deregulated markets are structurally more favorable to fossil fuel-based generation sources than publicly-regulated price environments.

At this point, the conclusions on the cost of wind power (ignoring externalities, including network issues which I discuss below) are that they seem to be similar in scale to those of traditional power sources (nukes, gas, coal), but that they have a very different relationship to prices.

So let's talk about prices.

Prices

There are two aspects here: the price received by wind producers, and the price paid by buyers of electrical power.

The price of wind energy is what wind energy producers get for their production. It may, or may not, be related to the cost of the generation, but you'd expect the price to be higher than the cost, otherwise investment would not happen. But the question is whether the price needs to be higher all the time, or just on average, and, if so, for what duration.

Given that wind has fixed costs, all that a wind producer requires is a selling price which is slightly above its long term costs. That makes investment in wind profitable and actually rather safe. The problem, as we've seen, is that wind is a price-taker; and, unless producers are able to find long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with electricity consumers at prices that permit debt service, it is subject to the vagaries of market prices. When your main burden is to repay your debt, and you don't have enough cash for too long (because prices are below your cost for that period), your creditor can foreclose on the investment debt. This is true even though you can generate a lot of cash (remember that wind is a zero-marginal-cost producer and can generate income, whatever the market price is) - which means that a bankrupt wind farm will always be a good business to take over; it's just that it may not be a good business in which to invest, if prices are too volatile...

Therefore, it is not surprising that the most effective system to support the development of wind power has been so-called feed-in tariffs whereby the wind producers get a guaranteed, fixed price over a long duration (typically 15 to 20 years) at a level set high enough to cover costs. The fixed price is paid by the utility that's responsible for electricity distribution in the region where the wind farm is located, and it is allowed by the regulator to pass on the cost of that tariff (the difference between the fixed rate and the wholesale market price) to ratepayers. It's simple to design, it's effective and, as we'll see, it's actually also the cheapest way to promote wind. Other mechanisms include quotas which can be traded (that's what green certificates or renewable portfolio standards are) or direct subsidies, usually via tax mechanisms. Apart from tax benefits, which are borne by taxpayers, all other schemes impose a cost surcharge on electricity consumers (although, as we'll see below, in the case of feed-in tariffs, that surcharge may not exist in reality).

But there's an even trickier aspect to wind and electricity prices: in market environments, under marginal cost rules, the price for electricity is determined by the most expensive producers needed at that time to fulfill demand. Demand is, apart from some industrial use, not price sensitive in the very short term, and is almost fixed (people switching lights and A/C on, etc...), so supply has to adapt, and the price of the last producers that needs to be switched on will determine the price for everybody else.

Source: Economics of wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


If you look at the above graph, you see a typical 'dispatch curve', i.e., the line representing generation capacity, ranked by price. Hydro is usually the cheapest (on the left), followed by nuclear and/or coal, and then by gas-fired plants and CHP (co-generation of heat and power) plants, followed to the far right by peaker plants, usually gas- or oil-fired.

The demand curve is shown by the nearly vertical lines on the right graph. The intersection of the two curves gives the price. As is logical, nighttime demand is lower and requires a lower price than normal daytime prices, which are, of course, less than peak demand which requires expensive (“peaker”) power generators to be switched on.

The righthand graph shows what happens when wind comes into the picture: as a very low marginal-cost generator, it is added to the dispatch curve on the left, and pushes out all other generators, to the extent that it is available at that time. By injecting "cheap" power into the system, it lowers prices. The impact on prices is low at night, but can become significant during the day and very significant at peak times (subject, once again, to actual availability of wind at that time).

Source: Economics of wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


As the graph above suggests, the impact on price of significant wind injections is high throughout the day and is highest at times of high demand. When there's a lot of wind, you end up with prices that get flattened to the price of base load (the marginal cost of nukes or coal) at which point wind no longer has any downward influence on price.

The consequence of this is that the more wind you have into the system, the lower the price for electricity. With gas, it's the opposite: the more gas you need, the higher the price will be (in the short term, because you need more expensive plants to be turned on; in the long run, because you push the demand for gas up, which raises the price of gas, and, therefore, the price of electricity from gas-burning plants).

In fact, if you get to a significant share of wind in a system that uses market prices, you get to a point where wind drives prices down to levels where wind power loses money all the time! (That may sound impossible, but it does happen because the difference between the lowered marginal cost and the higher long term cost of the capital investment is so big).

There are two lessons here:

• wind power has a strongly positive effect for consumers, by driving prices down during the day.
• it is difficult for wind power generators to make money under market mechanisms unless wind penetration remains very low. This means that if wind is seen as a desirable power-generating system, ways need to be found to ensure that the revenues that wind generators actually get for electricity are not driven by the market prices that they make possible.

That's actually the point of feed-in tariffs, which provide stable, predictable revenue to wind producers, ensuring that their maximum production is injected into the system at all times, which influences market prices by making supply of more expensive producers unnecessary. And these tariffs make sense for consumers. The higher fixed price is added to the bill for the buyers of electricity, but as that bill is lower than it would have otherwise been, the actual cost is much lower than it appears. As I've noted in earlier diaries, studies in Germany, Denmark and Spain prove that the net cost of feed-in tariffs in these countries actually has a negative effect on prices. That is, the fixed cost imposed on consumers ends up reducing their bills!

Assessment of the impact of renewable electricity generation on the German electricity sector (pdf). Mario Ragwitz, Frank Sensfuss, Fraunhofer Institute, presentation to EWEC 2008.


The table above indicates that renewable energy (mostly wind, plus some solar) injections into the German electricity system caused, on average over the year, total price for electrical power to be reduced by about 8 euros/MWh - about 15%. That translated into savings of 5 billion euros over the year for electricity buyers (utilities and other wholesale consumers), or 95 EUR/MWh for just the renewable energy component. With a feed-in tariff for all renewables of approximately 103 EUR/MWh (the wind tariff component is around 85 EUR/MWh), the net cost for the renewable sector is thus under 10 EUR/MWh, compared to an average wholesale price of 40-50 EUR/MWh. Thanks to the feed-in tariff, a wind MWH costs one fifth of a coal MWh!

In other words, by guaranteeing a high price to wind generators, you ensure that they are around to bring prices down. And that trick can only work with low marginal-cost producers (e.g., wind-based). It cannot work with any fuel-based generator, which would need to pay for fuel in any case. Such an arrangement might end up requiring a higher price than the guaranteed level to break even, if fuel prices increase - a likely event if such a scheme was implemented, because it would encourage investment in such plants, increasing demand for the fuel.

So we get a glimpse of the fact that there is value in wind power for consumers which is not reflected directly through current electricity prices, and is only remotely related to the actual cost of wind.

Value / externalities

This brings us to our last point: The "value" of wind power should/must include the other impacts of wind power within the economic system that are not captured by monetary mechanisms. This is what economists call externalities; i.e., the impact of economic behavior or decisions which are not reflected in the costs or prices of the economic entity taking the decision. Pollution is a typical externality, as is the impact on the distribution grid of bringing in a new energy producer.

Regulation is meant to put a price on these 'external' items, in order to reflect the "true cost" of a given economic action. Among the externalities that we need to discuss here are the intermittency of wind; carbon emissions (which, in this case, is an existing, improperly-priced externality of existing technologies which wind can help to avoid); and security of supply.

Intermittency and balancing costs

A traditional argument against wind is that its availability is variable and cannot reliably fulfill demand. Readers may be surprised to find this aspect listed here as an externality - but that's what it is. In a market, you are not obliged to sell; the fact that the electricity grid requires demand to be provided at all times is a separate service, which is not the same thing as supplying electricity – it is, instead, continuity of supply. But while wind is criticized for its intermittency, I never hear coal or nuclear criticized because the reserve requirements of the system need to be at least as big as the largest plant around, in case that plant (which is inevitably a multi-gigawatt coal or nuclear plant) curtails production. The market for MWh and the market for "spare MWh on short notice" are quite different, and the Germans actually treat them separately:

From wikipedia.


The Germans distinguish between permanent base load (i.e., the minimum consumption of any time which effectively requires permanent generation, "Grundlast" {in the graph above}, semi-base load {or the predictable portion of the daily demand curve, "Mittellast" in the graph above}, and peak/unpredictable demand (i.e. the short term variations of supply availability and demand - "Spitzenlast" {in the graph above}). Wind is now predictable with increasing accuracy with a few hours advance, and can, for the most part, be part of semi-base load. That is, low winds can be treated just like a traditional plant being shut down for maintenance: reduced availability of a given production facility, for which standard energy-planning strategies apply.

For contrasting views on this topic, you can read these two articles: Wind is reliable and Critique of wind integration into the grid on Claverton. The reality here is that the service "reliability of supply" is well-understood, and the technical requirements (having stand-by capacity for the potentially required volumes) are well-known. There is plenty of experience on how to provide the resource ("spinning reserves", i.e. gas-fired plants available to be fired up; interruptible supply contracts with some industrial users who accept to be switched off at short notice). Experience and the relevant regulations have made it possible to put a price on that service.

Source: Economics of wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


In the case of wind, the cost of this service (which a wind producer pays to the grid operator) is estimated at 2-4 EUR/MWh, which is 5% or less of the cost of wind (essentially, amortized initial investment cost). And, given that the relevant regulations exist, this externality can be easily internalized – either added to the cost of producing windpower or deducted from the price that wind generators can get for selling their "naked" MWh.

Carbon emissions

The second externality to mention is carbon emissions. In that case, it is not an externality caused by wind generation; it is an externality which is created by existing power generators, which is not properly accounted for yet today, but which wind generation avoids. In other words, there is a benefit for society to replace fossil fuel-burning generation by wind, but it is not 'priced in' yet (or, in other words, the indirect cost of coal-burning is paid by, for instance, the inhabitants of low-lying islands rather than by the consumers of that electricity).
Attempts to price carbon emissions are moving forward via the European ETS (emissions trading system) and the expected "cap-and-trade" mechanism in the USA. These require carbon-dioxide-spewing generators to pay for that privilege, which will be added to their cost of generating electricity (but not to that of wind, as it emits no carbon dioxide in the process).

Source: Economics of wind (pdf) by the European Wind Energy Association.


The grey area in the bars above is the added cost of producing electricity from coal or gas for two different prices of carbon (note that the bottom graph also changes the cost of fuel, which increases the other component of cost for coal and gas). It has a significant impact on the net cost of production for these sources and on the respective cost-advantages of competing technologies. Note that the graph above includes the grid-related costs for wind, as discussed above, in dark blue.

It is legitimate to include the cost of carbon, as it is to include the cost of stand-by capacity, in the calculation of the cost of electricity. If we consider the power grid as a fully integrated system, then there is very little reason to include some externalities and not others - other, that is, than force of habit and lobbying by the incumbents who designed the rules around their existing generation mix.

Security of supply

A power plant is an investment that can last 25 to 50 years (or even more, as in the case of dams). Once built, it will create patterns of behavior that will similarly last for a very long time. A gas-fired plant will require supply of gas for 25 years or more (and the corresponding infrastructure, attached services, employees ... and lobbyists). Given worries about resource depletion (usually downplayed) and about the unreliability of some suppliers (hysterically exaggerated, for example, by the "New Cold War" hype about Putin's Russia), it is not unreasonable to suggest that security of supply has a cost.

This may be reflected in long term supply arrangements with firm commitments by gas-producing countries to deliver agreed volumes of gas over many years. However, given all the Russia-angst we hear in Europe, this does not seem to be enough (even though most supplies from Russia are under long term contracts). Wind, which requires no fuel, and thus no imports, neatly avoids that problem, but how can that be valued in economic terms? That question has no satisfactory reply today, but it is clear that the value is more than nil.

Another aspect of this is that "security of supply" is usually understood to mean "at reasonable prices." Fuel-fired power plants will need to buy gas or coal in 10, 15, or 20 years' time, and it is impossible today to hedge the corresponding price risk. Given prevalent pricing mechanisms, individual plants may not care so much (they will pass on fuel price increases to consumers), but consumers may not be so happy with the result. Again here, wind, with its fixed price over many years, provides a very valuable alternative: a guarantee that its costs will not increase over time. Markets should theoretically be able to value this, but 'futures' markets are not very liquid for durations beyond 5 years, and thus, in practice, they don't do it. This is where governments can step in, to provide a value today to the long term option embedded in wind (i.e., a "call" at a low price). This is what feed-in tariffs do, fundamentally, by setting a fixed price for wind production which is high enough for producers to be happy with their investment today, but low enough to provide a hedge against cost increases elsewhere in the system. Indeed, last year, when oil and gas prices were very high, feed-in tariffs in several countries ended up being below the prevailing wholesale price: the subsidy proved its purpose.

Note that the regulatory framework will decide who gets access to that value: if wind is sold at a fixed price, it is the buyer of that power that will benefit from the then-cheap supply (and that may be a private buyer under a PPA, or the grid operator. Depending on regulatory mechanics, that benefit may be kept by that entity or have to be reflected in retail tariffs for end consumers). If wind producers get support in the form of tax credits or "green certificates", it is wind producers that will capture the windfall of higher power prices. So the question is not just how to make that value appear, but also how to share it. Both are political questions to which there are no obvious answers, currently.
* * * * * * *

So wind power has value as a low-emissions, home-grown, fixed-cost supplier. It also tends to create significant numbers of largely non-offshoreable jobs, which may be an argument in today's context. It also has, in a market-pricing mechanism, the effect of lowering prices for consumers, thanks to its zero-marginal cost. Its drawbacks, mainly intermittency, can be priced and taken into account by the system. (Birds/bat are not a serious issue, despite the hype; aesthetics are a very subjective issue which can usually be sidestepped by avoiding certain locations - the US is big enough, and Europe has the North Sea.)

Altogether, wind seems to be an excellent deal for consumers - and an obvious pain for competing sources of power, except maybe those specializing in on-demand capacity. In other words – sticking with mostly coal or nuclear is a political choice, not an economic one.

Source / European Tribune

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

11 March 2009

Music Video by Ric Sternberg : That Big Hot Texas Sun

Music video by Ric Sternberg / The Rag Blog.

Red hot music video promotes solar energy with red hot Austin musicians.

By Ric Sternberg / The Rag Blog / March 11, 2009

Why do we keep fiddling while Texas burns? We are burning our environment, burning fossil fuels. But the solution is right over our heads. This hot, Texas/New Orleans style music video makes the case for solar energy in Texas.

It was produced in response to a call from Environment Texas to submit videos on the subject. The piece centers on a song by singer-songwriter Frank Meyer, and features great Austin musicians including Phoebe Hunt on fiddle, Marvin Dykhuis on guitar, Oliver Steck on trumpet, Joe England on flute and Geno Gottschall on the big honking Sousaphone.

As a renewable energy advocate for many years, I was thrilled to answer Environment Texas' call.

This was a labor of love, not only for me but for many of the talented folks who helped. Frank Meyer often writes songs that relate to his passions for peace and alternatives and is a brilliant green builder as well as singer-songwriter. (In fact, Frank helped tremendously and led the wall raising at our straw bale home.) So he was the logical choice to write and perform the song when I came up with the idea.

Phoebe Hunt is an Austin phenomenon -- a genius fiddler (at only 24) who is also very committed to saving the planet. Oliver Steck (another genius, IMO) and his trumpet, baritone horn, accordion, etc., can be found, along with Frank and Bill Oliver and Richard Bowden, making music at just about every peace demonstration. Marvin Dykhuis is yet another brilliant musician who donated his considerable talents to this project. Marvin also generously donated his studio to record his tracks along with Frank's vocal and Phoebe's fiddle part. Marvin, BTW, is also a straw bale house dweller.

Geno Gottschall provided the funky bottom on his hot tuba (he marched with the Sousaphone but played the part on tuba in the studio). My fellow Minor Mishap Marching Band member Joe English provided the top with his tasty flute playing. And I filled in the rhythm, playing both the bass and snare drum parts (though I credited two other Minor Mishap members -- monster bass player Rob Jewett and my old buddy Skip Gerson, who carried the instruments and faked it for the video shot). Rounding out the parade was another old friend - Mike "Sully" Sullivan, who mimed playing the baritone horn beautifully.

My friend (dating back to the early 70s in Vermont) East Side Flash did the recording of the instruments that we did not do at Marvin's at his great facility - Flashpoint Recording Studio. Flash also did the mix and audio sweetening.

The Austin area is probably the best place in the world to do a project like this, not just because of the abundance of talented, committed musicians and facilities, but because everyone seems to be into these ideas.

Now, as my dear departed friend Susan Lee Solar sloganed when she ran against George Bush as the Green Party candidate for Governor, let's GO SOLAR!

[Ric Sternberg is an Austin writer and filmmaker. Vist his AIM Productions website.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

27 December 2008

Passive Solar: Living Without Furnaces in the Cold

This is the kind of innovation that will be required around the world in short order. We love reading our Friends at Earth Family Alpha: they always have a positive outlook and make incredibly imaginative suggestions about how we can go forward, just as does this article.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Berthold Kaufmann and his wife, Dorte Feierabend, with their daughters in their "passive house" in Darmstadt, Germany. Photo: Rolf Oeser for The New York Times.

No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in ‘Passive Houses’
By Elisabeth Rosenthal / December 26, 2008

DARMSTADT, Germany — From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace.

In Berthold Kaufmann’s home, there is, to be fair, one radiator for emergency backup in the living room — but it is not in use. Even on the coldest nights in central Germany, Mr. Kaufmann’s new “passive house” and others of this design get all the heat and hot water they need from the amount of energy that would be needed to run a hair dryer.

“You don’t think about temperature — the house just adjusts,” said Mr. Kaufmann, watching his 2-year-old daughter, dressed in a T-shirt, tuck into her sausage in the spacious living room, whose glass doors open to a patio. His new home uses about one-twentieth the heating energy of his parents’ home of roughly the same size, he said.

Architects in many countries, in attempts to meet new energy efficiency standards like the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design standard in the United States, are designing homes with better insulation and high-efficiency appliances, as well as tapping into alternative sources of power, like solar panels and wind turbines.

The concept of the passive house, pioneered in this city of 140,000 outside Frankfurt, approaches the challenge from a different angle. Using ultrathick insulation and complex doors and windows, the architect engineers a home encased in an airtight shell, so that barely any heat escapes and barely any cold seeps in. That means a passive house can be warmed not only by the sun, but also by the heat from appliances and even from occupants’ bodies.

And in Germany, passive houses cost only about 5 to 7 percent more to build than conventional houses.

Decades ago, attempts at creating sealed solar-heated homes failed, because of stagnant air and mold. But new passive houses use an ingenious central ventilation system. The warm air going out passes side by side with clean, cold air coming in, exchanging heat with 90 percent efficiency.

“The myth before was that to be warm you had to have heating. Our goal is to create a warm house without energy demand,” said Wolfgang Hasper, an engineer at the Passivhaus Institut in Darmstadt. “This is not about wearing thick pullovers, turning the thermostat down and putting up with drafts. It’s about being comfortable with less energy input, and we do this by recycling heating.”

There are now an estimated 15,000 passive houses around the world, the vast majority built in the past few years in German-speaking countries or Scandinavia.

The first passive home was built here in 1991 by Wolfgang Feist, a local physicist, but diffusion of the idea was slowed by language. The courses and literature were mostly in German, and even now the components are mass-produced only in this part of the world.

The industry is thriving in Germany, however — for example, schools in Frankfurt are built with the technique.

Moreover, its popularity is spreading. The European Commission is promoting passive-house building, and the European Parliament has proposed that new buildings meet passive-house standards by 2011.

The United States Army, long a presence in this part of Germany, is considering passive-house barracks.

“Awareness is skyrocketing; it’s hard for us to keep up with requests,” Mr. Hasper said.

Nabih Tahan, a California architect who worked in Austria for 11 years, is completing one of the first passive houses in the United States for his family in Berkeley. He heads a group of 70 Bay Area architects and engineers working to encourage wider acceptance of the standards. “This is a recipe for energy that makes sense to people,” Mr. Tahan said. “Why not reuse this heat you get for free?”

Ironically, however, when California inspectors were examining the Berkeley home to determine whether it met “green” building codes (it did), he could not get credit for the heat exchanger, a device that is still uncommon in the United States. “When you think about passive-house standards, you start looking at buildings in a different way,” he said.

Buildings that are certified hermetically sealed may sound suffocating. (To meet the standard, a building must pass a “blow test” showing that it loses minimal air under pressure.) In fact, passive houses have plenty of windows — though far more face south than north — and all can be opened.

Inside, a passive home does have a slightly different gestalt from conventional houses, just as an electric car drives differently from its gas-using cousin. There is a kind of spaceship-like uniformity of air and temperature. The air from outside all goes through HEPA filters before entering the rooms. The cement floor of the basement isn’t cold. The walls and the air are basically the same temperature.

Look closer and there are technical differences: When the windows are swung open, you see their layers of glass and gas, as well as the elaborate seals around the edges. A small, grated duct near the ceiling in the living room brings in clean air. In the basement there is no furnace, but instead what looks like a giant Styrofoam cooler, containing the heat exchanger.

Passive houses need no human tinkering, but most architects put in a switch with three settings, which can be turned down for vacations, or up to circulate air for a party (though you can also just open the windows). “We’ve found it’s very important to people that they feel they can influence the system,” Mr. Hasper said.

The houses may be too radical for those who treasure an experience like drinking hot chocolate in a cold kitchen. But not for others. “I grew up in a great old house that was always 10 degrees too cold, so I knew I wanted to make something different,” said Georg W. Zielke, who built his first passive house here, for his family, in 2003 and now designs no other kinds of buildings.

In Germany the added construction costs of passive houses are modest and, because of their growing popularity and an ever larger array of attractive off-the-shelf components, are shrinking.

But the sophisticated windows and heat-exchange ventilation systems needed to make passive houses work properly are not readily available in the United States. So the construction of passive houses in the United States, at least initially, is likely to entail a higher price differential.

Moreover, the kinds of home construction popular in the United States are more difficult to adapt to the standard: residential buildings tend not to have built-in ventilation systems of any kind, and sliding windows are hard to seal.

Dr. Feist’s original passive house — a boxy white building with four apartments — looks like the science project that it was intended to be. But new passive houses come in many shapes and styles. The Passivhaus Institut, which he founded a decade ago, continues to conduct research, teaches architects, and tests homes to make sure they meet standards. It now has affiliates in Britain and the United States.

Still, there are challenges to broader adoption even in Europe.

Because a successful passive house requires the interplay of the building, the sun and the climate, architects need to be careful about site selection. Passive-house heating might not work in a shady valley in Switzerland, or on an urban street with no south-facing wall. Researchers are looking into whether the concept will work in warmer climates — where a heat exchanger could be used in reverse, to keep cool air in and warm air out.

And those who want passive-house mansions may be disappointed. Compact shapes are simpler to seal, while sprawling homes are difficult to insulate and heat.

Most passive houses allow about 500 square feet per person, a comfortable though not expansive living space. Mr. Hasper said people who wanted thousands of square feet per person should look for another design.

“Anyone who feels they need that much space to live,” he said, “well, that’s a different discussion.”

Source / The New York Times

Thanks to Betsy Gaines / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

04 August 2008

Solar Power Breakthrough Stores Energy for Later Use

MIT's Daniel Nocera.

'Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon'
August 2, 2008

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Within 10 years, homeowners could power their homes in daylight with solar photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water to power a household fuel cell. If the new process developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds acceptance in the marketplace, electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.

"This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, senior author of a paper describing the simple, inexpensive, and efficient process for storing solar energy in the July 31 issue of the journal "Science."

"Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon," Nocera said.

Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is expensive and inefficient. But Nocera and his team of researchers have hit upon an elegant solution.

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed a new process that will allow the Sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases.

Later, the oxygen and hydrogen can be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power buildings, homes or electric cars - day or night.

The key component in the new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water - another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas.

The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water.

When electricity from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs in plants during photosynthesis.

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and is easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said.

Sunlight has the greatest potential of any power source to solve the world's energy problems, said Nocera. In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year.

James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem."

Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require an environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.

More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is confident that such systems will become a reality.

"This is just the beginning," said Nocera, principal investigator for the Solar Revolution Project funded by the Chesonis Family Foundation and co-Director of the Eni-MIT Solar Frontiers Center. "The scientific community is really going to run with this."

The project is part of the MIT Energy Initiative, a program designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the needs of the future and to help build a bridge to that future by improving today's energy systems.

MITEI Director Ernest Moniz said, "This discovery in the Nocera lab demonstrates that moving up the transformation of our energy supply system to one based on renewables will depend heavily on frontier basic science."

This project was funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family Foundation, which gave MIT $10 million this spring to launch the Solar Revolution Project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of solar energy within 10 years.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

Source / Environment News Service

Thanks to CommonDreams / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

07 July 2008

The Earth: Love It or Lose It, Part V

Two Potential Components of Microgeneration
By Paul Spencer / The Rag Blog / July 7, 2008

Microgeneration may or may not present much of a solution for our increasing energy deficit; but it's still fun, and it's not counter-productive as a hobby, as long as we continue to do our personal duty of energy-use reduction and political agitation for renewable-energy generation. Within the category of microgeneration, there are a number of interesting inventions and ideas; but some of them make claims that are – well – unsubstantiated, if not physically impossible. For instance, some 'rooftop' wind turbine designers claim that a device that looks like an over-sized passive roof vent will supply a household's energy needs. Ain't gonna happen.

So – into that breach I leap. Last year I collected the pieces of an interesting puzzle – an experiment actually. Y'all might be interested in the results, when they become available. I should have some initial data this coming Winter. Ingredients (puzzle pieces): forty 6-volt, 180 amp-hour batteries; one 2.5 kilowatt, true-sine-wave, grid-tie inverter; 0.6 kw capability photovoltaic modules; five 4-feet by 12-feet, black rubber, solar-water-heating “pads”; two 275 gallon (U.S.) plastic water tanks; two ½ horsepower electric pumps; one water-to-air heat pump (5-ton capacity).

Here is an example of the water tank.


Here is the water-to-air heat pump (compressor/input-exchange end).


Here is one of the pads.


Here's the theory, summarized: Water-to-air heat pumps use the well-known refrigeration cycle of expansion/compression [of a gas] to concentrate heat in one region of the machine and to remove heat from another region. For those who don't know about the so-called geothermal heat pump system, it is typically based on pipes set about 1.7 meters deep in the ground, where soil temperature stays fairly stable at close to 10 degrees C in the temperate zones of the world. In Winter the refrigeration cycle is designed such that the heat pump pulls out some of the heat inherent in 10 degree water, sending, say, 5 degree water back into the pipes in the ground. The length of the piping system is calculated to permit the water to equilibrate at the ground temperature before returning to the heat pump. In Summer the system is valved such that the system reverses direction in terms of heat flow – the heated water goes out to the pipes in the ground. The piping systems are typically quite long, but the extent of the trenching can be reduced by digging wider trenches and looping the pipe as it is laid.

Another less-used system (that is also becoming more common) is to use black rubber pads with small channels fabricated into the length of the pads, manifolded into pipes running width-wise at either end of the pads, to capture solar-based heat in water flowing through these channels. In the U.S. swimming pools are sometimes warmed in the Spring and Fall by this method. Occasionally, these pads are used in conjunction with storage tanks to provide warm/hot water for 'hydronic' heating of floors – water-carrying tubes laid in thick mortar beds under tiles, for instance.

The idea/experiment here is to combine the heating via the black pads with a water-to-air heat pump. One ½ hp pump will drive the water from the storage tanks through the pads on the roof and back into the tanks. A second pump will take water from the tanks to the heat pump, when a house-interior thermostat demands hot (or cold) air.

Now we get to the particular arrangement.

Here are 5 of the pads deployed and plumbed on my roof.


Here is the plumbing within the garage (directly under the pads).


Next are a couple of close-ups of the plumbing by which you can see the basic arrangement. First, the outlets of the two tanks are in parallel and connected to a pump (in-between the tanks) that pushes water from the bottom of the tanks up to the lower-side connections of the pads on the roof.



The pipe from the pump 'tees' to the water-to-air heat pump inlet. (From the heat pump outlet there is a pipe that goes to the return inlets in the caps on top of the tanks. These are loose-fitting to allow air pressure to stay equalized during pumping – and for ease of removal, if the caps need to be unscrewed for some kind of tank maintenance work.)


Returning water from the pads (hopefully, somewhat heated) is collected by a second pipe connected to the top ends of the pads. This bottom-to-top circulation keeps the water in the pads in contact with the pad's tubes for best heat transfer. This collection pipe comes through the roof above the mid-point between the two tanks and 'tees' to two pipes lined up with the tanks' caps (also 'teed' to the outlet pipe from the heat pump). The southern tank line (left side of picture) also is 'teed' with a return pipe from the water-pump-to-roof pipe, which is valved. This allows the water to be fully drained from the pads on the roof when the pump is not being operated. Without it, water would remain in the pads and the pipe to the pads, and, when outside temperatures go below freezing, the pipe and pads would be damaged by freezing water. In case it's not clear, the valve is closed when the pump is operating; open when the pump is switched off.




As you can see there are several manual valves in the system. Initially, valves will be set by me for various periods of data collection. Eventually, the idea would be to put in servo- or electro-controlled valves that would be controlled by a computer set up to analyze water temperature, ambient outside temperature, and in-house temperature via sensors. The controls could be timed, too. It might be reasonable to have a daylight-sensing input, as well, since that should be the salient factor for heating, plus the salient counter-factor for cooling.

As I stated in my earlier diary my roof is a south-facing roof in the Columbia River Gorge, 65 kilometers east of Portland, OR. This geographical location is poor for solar insolation, and we have fairly strong winds that might cause loss of heat in the pads just from moving-air contact. Also, the roof is a 12:2, which means that it makes an angle of about 10 degrees to the horizontal. At my latitude the optimal roof angle would be more like 45 to 50 degrees to the horizontal as a compromise for the angle of the Sun in the sky from mid-Autumn to mid-Spring. Not the best situation for solar heating.

I have the forty 6-volt batteries in two rows, which will be arrayed in four parallel-circuit groups, which will then be hooked up in series, so that I'll have a 24-volt system to match my inverter. The picture of the batteries shows them just after I had built the shelves and placed the batteries; they are now covered, but not connected. The inverter is mounted, but, obviously, not connected either.

Two pictures




The inverter can make switching decisions such as: 1) if no exterior power (e.g., downed transmission lines), route from batteries to house demand; 2) if house demand is less than solar-based input, charge batteries; 3) if 2) and if batteries are charged, send to the exterior power grid (turn meter backwards).

I have 0.6 kw capacity of photovoltaics to install, but these should go up by mid-Autumn. At that point I'll decide whether to buy more and whether to mount them on a structure that will, at least, allow me to vary the angle to the southern horizon.

That's the update on the solar heating project. Here's a diary in The European Tribune by 'Marco' on microgeneration, which said:

“There are an estimated 100,000 microgeneration units already installed in Britain.

“Nearly 90,000 of these are solar water heaters, with limited numbers of biomass boilers, photovoltaic panels, heat pumps, fuel cells, and small-scale hydroelectric and windpower schemes...

“But, with the right incentives, nearly one in five buildings in Britain would effectively become mini power stations, feeding electricity into the grid, or generating enough to be largely self-sufficient. Some of the greatest gains would be in combined heat and power units which are suitable for large blocks of flats, estates and businesses.


“In Britain, as in the United States, zoning laws and regulations are obstacles that are blocking greater investment of microgeneration of power, especially with wind turbines. Britons, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, 'have all had applications to erect wind turbines on their roofs turned down by planning officers.'"
Sorry, but this just makes sense. Small, propellor-type turbines have a high rotational speed, which makes them a potential disaster for birds and bats, at least. Beyond that, there are critical issues of manufacture (balancing, for instance), installation, maintenance, and monitoring (for fatigue failure among other conditions).

As one reader commented:
“Microgeneration should not include windpower at this time in urban areas. Virtually no urban areas of the world have enough of a wind resource to sustain the development of such an industry. Even windy San Francisco can't sustain residential scale wind turbines except right on the coast, or the highest elevations. Better that neighborhoods be allowed to invest in commercial developments where the winds are strong.”
Another reader raised a particularly good point:
“However, there is also the question of ...

... sweat equity. In a system where large numbers of people cannot reliably expect to sell as much labor as they are willing to offer to the market, microturbines of the kind that have half the generator mechanism expoxied into the turbine might have a cash cost that is appealing for some, even if the full economic cost including the notional cost of labor would make it appear uneconomic.

“When it is reducing total demand from the grid, it is replacing electricity sold at retail ... if net metering is in effect, this is topped up during surplus generation periods by selling surplus power onto the grid.”
So – the second part of this diary – how about VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbines) as a kind of hobby with low cost, low risk, and modest payback? I know the efficiency arguments concerning vertical-axis vs. propellor-style turbines, and they are likely correct, but take a look at this just for fun:


I suppose that it's not self-explanatory, even in graphic form, but this device closes the vanes on the half of the cycle where the wind is driving the 'wall' and opens the vanes on the half of the cycle when the wind is opposing rotation. Does it actually perform as described? This is a picture from 1982 of my homemade model mounted in the back of my '62 IH pickup truck. (I only drove used 'cornbinders' from county surplus sales from the late-'60s to the early '80s. Larry Caroline introduced me to them.) I drove it down the road, and the 'mill' performed exactly as described. It started turning at about 5 mph, vanes started lifting and closing at about 7 mph, and it was spinning at a rather frightening rate when I hit 15 mph (and the vanes were still opening and closing, clacking away – no, it wasn't my cornbinder's valves). I didn't dare go any faster than that, because I could also see that my lashing job wasn't going to keep the device in my truck, if I didn't slow down.

OK – this was an unbalanced model made out of pieces of stuff that I found in my garage, and the wood vanes made a fair racket. Now it's time for me to make a more usable (and bigger) model out of materials that will endure and operate quietly. This time I won't go for junkyard chic. In fact I will use materials that will test the cost factor for this design.

I predict that the cost for this type of device will be low, even with caging to prevent contact with anything larger than a dragonfly. As to conversion efficiency, I visualize a fairly reasonable torque that might be converted to high-speed rotation of an alternator via a simple belt drive – all right on the ground, where it's relatively easy to support, to maintain, to replace, to whatever. Low wind-speeds due to ground interface? Probably, but the device should at least be responsive to changes in wind direction, however frequent and unpredictable. Y'all know the arguments, but this observation might be the clincher for going forward. This device can be made out of the “stuff in my garage”; it's not a difficult job at all. If it turns out to be inexpensive to boot, what's to lose?

What have y'all got for show-and-tell?

Go here for Paul Spencer's all the entires so far "The Earth: Love It or Lose It" series on The Rag Blog.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.