"The price quoted by Tesla does not include installation of the unit. To this needs to be added the cost of installing solar panels to gather energy."
Next challenge, Elon Musk : cheaper solar panels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32549118
He is working on it, I think he is like the largest solar business now isn't he?
ReplyDeletePlenty solar panels that could use battery.
ReplyDeleteThe future of energy is looking good!
ReplyDeletehttp://qz.com/392138/audi-is-making-fuel-from-air-and-water/
This is not going to be nearly as huge as most people are saying. Is not a significant amount of storage and the cost is really high. Especially on top of a PV system.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne How is $3500 really high ? It's less than a car !
ReplyDeleteThe solar panel cost is still the limiting factor, not the battery.
Rhys Taylor because one battery won't do anything. Solar has about a 20% capacity factor on average that means you need batteries and additional PV generation to charge them. In order to make up for the other 80% of time you need power.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne How so ? 10 kwH is not a small amount of energy. Enough to run the average UK household for a day (though not an American one),
ReplyDeleteAverage consumption here in Indiana is just over 1000 kwH/month. 33 kwH/day...yeah, that makes these out of the range of most. But still, I'd be sorely tempted to pick up one and some panels and a small wind turbine, to help in the summer, if nothing else. It would be one of the few things worth taking out a home equity loan on.
ReplyDeleteNoah Doyle the problem is the generation to fill a battery then the cost of a battery and the life span of both still make this very very uneconomical. And that doesn't take into account the reliability if the system.
ReplyDeleteOn average most houses only spend $120 a month on service that averages 99+% reliability.
And none of that takes into account the low capacity factor of solar and wind. They only generate 20% of their nameplate annually on average.
Regarding cost, you guys are missing a big point - this would allow you to buy when power is cheap and use it when the power cost is higher.
ReplyDeleteSolarCity's panel offerings seemed pretty good to me. Musk heads that company too, last I heard.
Cliff Bramlett do a lot of looking into solar city. There are many many unhappy customers.
ReplyDeleteLinks, Shawn Dunne?
ReplyDeleteObviously this isn't going to work at all without a larger amount of renewable energy supplies. Which is likely to involve a combination of solar, wind, nuclear (yes it's renewable if you use breeder reactors), tidal and geothermal. That infrastructure is not yet in place, but the point is that the battery technology removes - or goes a very long way toward removing - the major criticism that most renewable sources aren't reliable. I refuse to believe that a combination of all sources cannot supply our electricity demands.
ReplyDeleteSure, a single battery doesn't satisfy the energy requirements for everyone. Some places require high energy consumption to stay warm or cool enough to make life bearable. But it goes a hell of a long way to making a sustainable future a practical reality.
Rhys Taylor renewables will not get you enough capacity period. The capacity factors are too low
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne That is simply not the case. Even solar has enough capacity.
ReplyDeleteLet's check Musk's map showing how much of the US would be needed to be covered with solar panels to supply all its power needs. The energy flux from the Sun is about 1,300 W/sq m. But that is reduced since solar panels typically only have an efficiency of 15%, so make that 195 W/sq m. The total energy used by the world per year is around 150,000 TWh, or 5.4E20 J. The area needed to supply this in one year comes to 8.8E10 sq m, or a square 300 km on a side - roughly in line with Musk's image.
Granted there will be other factors to consider, e.g. lower flux further from the equator, but clearly it is simply not true to say that renewables cannot provide enough capacity.
Rhys Taylor you don't understand what your speaking of and are falling for the main point made by people who promote solar as the ultimate solution.
ReplyDeleteCapacity factor is the amount of actual generation produced verses installed nameplate capacity. Musk and others speak of nameplate capacity but ignore the reality of capacity factor. Solar has a theoretical maximum capacity factor of 50%, but it has a real world demonstrated capacity factor of around 20%. That means if your solar array is rated 1MW (which is huge for residential) a 100% annual capacity factor would generate 8760MW. But reality is that it's only going to generate around 20% of that.
A coal, nuclear, or gas plant can achieve greater than 90% capacity factors.
And next is the scheduling issue of when you get your generation. You see peaks shift they are not always at the same time and system loads can vary greatly. This is the problem batteries are supposed to help with. Solar generation cannot be scheduled and with only a 20% capacity factor the rest will have to be made up with batteries. Even on a residential scale it's not near cost effective. So apply that to your example above and you need a minimum 80% more area and more storage. And that still only works with averages so you will still have times without sufficient generation.
Shawn Dunne I included an efficiency of 15% of the calculation. Or am I missing something else ?
ReplyDelete"the rest will have to be made up with batteries."
Yes. That's the point of Musk's announcement.
Rhys Taylor efficiency is the amount of energy in sun light converted to electricity. Capacity factor is actual generation over nameplate generation for a period of time.
ReplyDeleteWith solar the capacity factor is so low because of the variable input if energy from the sun
Shawn Dunne Gotcha. Factoring in that additional loss, I get an area of 660 km on a side. That still doesn't seem like a prohibitively large area given that this is for the energy supply of the entire world.
ReplyDeleteCliff Bramlett the first link works for me. I don't work for a solar city competitor, I have worked with many companies in the energy sector and have a decent amount if experience with large generation, including utility scale renewables.
ReplyDeleteFacts are facts, there have been many many complaints of solar city doing shoddy work, and not getting promised output from systems, and still holding people to contracts that they are not meeting their end on. A quick Google search will find multiple stories. The issue is that like Tesla, solar city is a poster child for a federal green energy program so many in the major media won't report the negative side.
http://humanevents.com/2014/03/05/customers-tell-horror-stories-of-solar-company-that-gets-422m-in-tax-dollars/
Shawn Dunne, facts are facts, but spin taints them. I understand that SolarCity has a lot of complaints. They're a big company though, relying on local contractors to do a some of the work, so I'd expect issues. What I'm also seeing is that those issues generally get fixed. Sure, it takes a while, but they do it. Have you ever tried getting a contractor to fix what they break once you've paid them? I have, on multiple occasions. Very few are resolved. Same goes for AT&T, Time Warner Cable. Yet SolarCity fixes issues.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your employment, why wouldn't you say who you work for, instead of "not a competitor"?
Oh, and that last link you posted? Even more right wing than the last one, with conflations abound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_Media_Group
Cliff Bramlett except they are still constantly over promising and under delivering. The issue is that solar city is doing whatever it takes to talk people into signing contracts that do not give customers the results promised. There are many people who have had the promise of reduced monthly costs who are now paying more, even though the systems meet the performance guarantee. I don't see Time Warner getting people into 20 year contacts and then trying to take their homes.
ReplyDeleteWhat company does Musk have that isn't reliant on government programs?
I don't say specifically who I work for because it changes all the time from contract to contract. I move from project to project and place to place, I'm currently working on a coal conversion.
Cliff Bramlett Tesla was and still is reliant on subsidized government programs and tax breaks. Tesla only launched an IPO when they did because they were about to default on their government loans. But they are still benefiting on EV credits and tax deductions. Not to Menton all the tax breaks they are given.
ReplyDeleteSpaceX is totally reliant on government contracts.
Solar city did and continues to recurve grants and well as being in a heavily subsidized industry. The current buisness model basically relies on financing through tax advantagous (aka subsidized) programs in order to have the capital to install systems.
Starting to see a trend?
Again the source doesn't change the truth. Look at the quarterly reports, none of these companies are viable without government funding.
Your information is wrong, Shawn Dunne. Please actually check my source links. They paid off their loan 5 yrs early. Someone has been badly misinforming you.
ReplyDeleteAlso wrong on SpaceX. They contract to a number of private companies. Further, it is the first commercially viable space program. All the OTHER space agencies are reliant on government contracts.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SpaceX/posts
Solar being subsidized is on the consumer end, not the buyer. The only trend I'm seeing is misinformation from you.
The source colors the truth. Wording makes a big difference. For instance, you gave wrong information about Tesla Motors as if it is fact. Doesn't make it so. Seeing that, I'm more likely to view your other statements in a less credible light. The fact that most of your sources are funded by the Koch brothers further decreases that credibility.
None of which changes the basic fact that the amount of energy coming from the Sun, accounting for solar panel efficiency and unreliability of the weather, is more than enough to meet our energy needs. Even the the current low efficiencies of solar panels we would need to use 0.3% of the total land area. So it is a nonsense to suggest that solar cannot be a solution, given energy storage.
ReplyDeleteCliff Bramlett they only paid off the loans with an early IPO in order to avoid default. They had ZERO income how would they pay?
ReplyDeleteSpace X didn't receive enough private funding to cover their operating cost look at their financials.
Which end is subsidized doesn't matter. Solar is actually subsidized on both.
Rhys Taylor except it really isn't in practicality. The issue is capacity factor and timing. Even at night power usage in the use is tens of TW. What are you going to do when an entire hemisphere is in the dark for night?
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne That's what the batteries are for. That's the whole point.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor except the batteries don't work on that scale and are extremely expensive.
ReplyDeleteIt would work IF you had large enough batteries, large enough solar fields, there were no such thing as transportation penalties, and cost were no object.
The problem is that for the foreseeable future these issues do exist. I'm not advocating abandoning the idea. I'm just saying the tech isn't there yet and it will be a really long time before it is.
We are not near a tipping point, a turn, or anything else. In a hundred years maybe but it's not 5 or 10 years out.
Still spouting shit? Shawn Dunne the Troll.
ReplyDeleteMy solar panels never match my requirements so I have to sell power to and buy power from the utilities. If all excess power went to a battery and I was able to use the battery to power things like lights and the dishwasher at night last thing before bed then that would be FANTASTIC!
ReplyDeleteNow when you buy a solar panel for your roof you can include a battery pack. I'm sure most people will. It's not a huge investment and it makes total sense with a very reasonable ROV. No more fretting over your bills worrying about how much you paid for each unit of energy and how much your provider paid you for each unit of energy. Fact is you will likely be self sufficient plain and simple. You might never pay for electric again. Solar panels are utterly reliable and simple as are the battery packs. The doubters who pretend they have technical expertise who try to paint a bad picture of TESLA are FULL OF CRAP.
I personally showed up Shawn Dunne for the the Troll that he is and exposed the limits of his technical knowledge in a previous thread.
This is an interesting point. When I tell people I have solar panels many of them immediately ask - do I have batteries? I have to explain that I do not. The thing is that many people who are not bothered about renewable energy simply assume that solar panels should have batteries to back them up. And they are of course absolutely correct. And because of Elon and Tesla now we can have what most right minded people think of as common sense.
Shawn Dunne
ReplyDelete"except the batteries don't work on that scale and are extremely expensive"
Well, no.
If you can power one home with one battery, you can power a million homes with a million batteries. Stands to reason. Granted, this is not currently possible in some countries such as the US or Canada. But it is possible in many other industrialised nations such as the UK, where average energy consumption in much lower.
$3500 is a lot of money but it is hardly extremely expensive, especially when you consider that it reduces energy costs and thus pays for itself in a few years.
Yes, countries consuming higher amounts of energy are going to need more batteries. Two or three per house perhaps. Yes, that's possibly too much for many people. But one battery is still going to be extremely useful since most people aren't in their homes in the day - they need energy at night. The battery charges during the day, then they use the energy later. Perhaps not enough to satisfy all their energy needs, but certainly enough to make a whopping great dent in their energy used from the grid. That is why batteries are a significant advance.
Not to mention that Tesla did demonstrate larger batteries at their press conference.
Yes, probably large solar fields will be needed, at least at the current efficiency levels of solar panels, and to increase the chances of avoiding cloudy weather. But that is not an argument against adopting the technology. While it would be nice to have everyone being entirely self-sufficient, it is hardly necessary. The point is that everyone can greatly reduce the energy they consume from fossil fuels. Now that the batteries are available and there's a plausible, affordable mechanism to store solar energy, building those solar plants suddenly looks like a much better idea.
"We are not near a tipping point, a turn, or anything else. In a hundred years maybe but it's not 5 or 10 years out."
That is ignoring the exponential improvements in solar technology.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-such-a-big-deal/
Definitely agree. Interesting point is that Solar panels and batteries are front loaded investments. Once the investment is paid for you can enjoy years of free electricity. So households that use loads of electricity can double up on their investment and save even more in the long run.
ReplyDeleteBatteries wear out. "Traditional lithium ion-batteries begin to degrade after a few hundred cycles of fully charging and fully discharging, or 1,000 cycles at most. " so after you adjust for this, it costs 35 cents per kwh just for storage.
ReplyDeleteTeslas battery appears to be priced at the $300/kWh level - or 33 cents per kwH just for storage. Even at the 2020 projected 100kWh level, it's still 11 cent a kwH, JUST FOR STORAGE. Wholesale electricity is only 6-7 cents per kwh. when retail elecricity at 11-12 cents is the same as just the storage.
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/#FlowCAES
Rhys Taylor no you can't, you still don't understand capacity factor.
ReplyDeleteFred Beckhusen Modern li-ion batteries are temperature controlled and are not permitted to fully charge and discharge. Thats basic. You can expect home storage batteries to last way past your ROV(return on investment ) after which point your electricity could be completely free.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne I'm struggling to see how I don't understand capacity factor. Each battery provides sufficient storage to power a home for a day. Sufficient solar panels are required to charge each battery beforehand. I already demonstrated that solar can easily accomplish this after accounting for panel efficiency and variation in sunlight, using the 20% factor you yourself provided.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not seeing anything complicated about this. Enough energy is provided by the Sun. That energy can now be stored. Done.
Granted, bigger batteries will be better to cope with longer periods of cloud cover. That's why it also makes sense to distribute the solar panels as widely as possible, and to also include other power sources besides solar.
I really don't see how this can fail to greatly alleviate the problem of renewables not being reliable.
Rhys Taylor One thing I'm confused about is whether Shawn Dunne knows he is a Troll or if he genuinely believes what he says. I managed to get him to admit he just installs industrial batteries so he certainly isn't an expert.
ReplyDeleteTom Barron I don't know either. His numbers don't make any sense as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Fred Beckhusen has a much more interesting point about including the lifetime of the batteries into the total cost. This is well worth a read :
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost-there/
Though I am not sure if the batteries will really have become unusable after 1,000 cycles or just have reduced capacity (which is what appears to be the case for the Tesla Roadster). Many people might still get a lot of use out of batteries at 70% of the nominal capacity.
Regardless of whether an improved lithium-ion battery or a flow battery or compressed air system is used for storage, the fact is there's enough solar energy to meet demand. So it does seem to be like we're looking at a drastic change in something more like a 10 year period rather than a century.
Fred Beckhusen Well, if I design engineer tells me they won't work, then they won't work. Can't argue with that. But I take "potentially a game change in 5-10 years" as still being very good news. It seems to me that the technology now needs improvements by x2-3, not orders of magnitude as it did a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteWould it be fair to call this "almost there" ?
Thanks for the links, those were interesting.
I haven't noticed anyone pointing out this, so I will. Every technology has got to start somewhere and as a beginning point these batteries represent a huge leap toward consumers being able to free themselves from the complete control exerted by the utility companies. I think this is splendid news and hope to someday see a world where people are free to produce and store at least a portion of their energy if not break free of the grid altogether...
ReplyDeleteFred Beckhusen 2 basic points are incorrect. But that's a result of your academic conjecture and assumptions which you use to support your premeditated negative conclusion. (Or simply put - cherry picked none technical articles using premeditated conjecture to analyse Teslas packs - hysterical really).
ReplyDelete1 Tesla batteries are not deep cycled
2 the battery cannot be derated from the advertised useable capacity.
So in effect the only derating that occurs is the fact that the battery is not deep cycled which is normal practice and this is already incorporated into the advertised useable capacity.
3rd point is that domestic applications are light duty. Batteries will last way longer than in cars. Teslas cars are already crossing the 100k mile point on the original battery packs.
Real world observation beats pseudo academic conjecture any time.
Owners love their Teslas just as they will love their wall mounted battery packs.
Rhys Taylor Honestly I would takes Rameznnam figures with a pinch of salt. They are nothing more than conjecture. They use simplified rule of thumb calculations but leave out specifics such as actual duty cycle and what effect the battery management system has on the operation of the pack and all of the research and real world monitoring that Tesla has done. I find it a bit galling tbh.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to know for sure is to dig into Teslas technical archives and reports and see for yourself. To be honest they will be pretty technical. Way beyond what we could be expected to understand in an evening of research (in the nicest possible way of course! ☺ )
Beyond that you can trust that Tesla know what they are doing. They have done pretty well so far.
galen stone I totally agree. My view is that although prices will come down and energy density will improve, Tesla batteries are where they need to be to allow us to get rid of the grid completely. It's going to take time simply because of the logistics of putting manufacturing in place and sorting out legislation.
ReplyDeleteThis is why we have to act now. It's not another 50 years to wait for the right technology, it's 50 years simply to impliment the technology we already have.
Interesting debate
ReplyDeleteThank you all for sharing
Rhys Taylor You still don't get to pick when you get your 20%. and when you need power you need it now
ReplyDeleteTom Barron there had already been noted battery degradation in all Tesla models. It's worse on cars that use superchargers often, some owners are reporting 15+%.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne Yes but considering that everything you say is bullshit and you are a Troll and you have NEVER submitted a link that backs up what you say (1 actor on youtube complaining about a Tesla roadster is not adequate ) who gives a crap?
ReplyDeleteTom Barron ha that's hilarious, except it was true and it's still true. Batteries do wear out.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne Not good enough
ReplyDeleteTom Barron that's the problem with you. I gave you the equation, the physics, and even example calculations.
ReplyDeleteAll of which are well proven arguments that follow simple laws of physics. The fact that you cannot understand them or refuse to is your problem.
Have you ever going a battery that lasts forever? No, they don't exist.
It's hard to argue with Teslas own public statements and actual measurements of Panasonic batteries, yet I see some still try to. "Tesla" batteries, which come from Panasonic and are LiNiCoAlO2 chemistry, have a useful life of 1,200 to 2,000 cycles. I find it impossible to divide that the 365 days in a year and I get 3 to 4 years, in an app that requires daily cycles like this one
ReplyDeleteTom Barron of course Tesla batteries are not deep cycled. That is the very point I made. If you do, they last 1/4 the above figures, as both the physics of LiNiCoAlO2, and their data sheet claims. And anyone can derate a battery any amount they want to, up to 100%, by not using it at all. What you said makes no sense to me at all.
There is simply no point whatsoever in paying approx 30 cents per kwh to get electricity via the Powerwall plus solar cells. At night, when you’re not generating solar power, you could simply get your electricity from the grid, for an average 12.5 cents a kwh. And here in sunny Texas, where it actualy makes some sense to use solar, I pay under 9 cents all day long. If a utility were to do this at scale, then you have to compete with wolesale prices at half that price. i.e., 30/2 =15/2 = 7/2 = wholesale. So the battery and solar lifetime costs together needs to half, half, and half again, and cost almost nothing to install, or it simply cannot compete.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-just-another-toy-for-rich-green-people/
Fred Beckhusen the actual number of cycles is only one factor and it's not a hard number. Battery life is a curve not a fixed number. Temperature, charging rate, and discharge rate are also variables in battery life. Fast charging is substantially worse on battery life as it combines high temperatures and normal cycling damage.
ReplyDeletekeep burning coal +Shawn Dunne
ReplyDeletehope you are proud of your work. Do they really pay you that much?
In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies.
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
http://www.energyjustice.net/map/coaldeath.html
Jose Gimenez Roca I'm plenty proud of my work and I'm sure we'll keep burning coal in I've way or another for a really long time. There really isn't a viable alternative, even nuclear will need other units to regulate load.
ReplyDeleteThe CATF research is a joke, there is one major critical flaw in it. It only focuses on particle size not particle content. There are major differences in how the body reacts to organic verses inorganic particles, and correlation isn't causation.
It's really easy to find links on the internet but that doesn't prove that you're really educated about the subject.
And BTW I've also done gas, clean coal, and solar projects.
"You still don't get to pick when you get your 20%. and when you need power you need it now "
ReplyDeleteHuh ? 20% is what you get on a cloudy day. I calculated the area of panels you'd need on this low level, so you will always have sufficient power. On the rarer occasions when the power received is even less, that's what batteries are for (as is the power on demand issue - that's the whole point of batteries, which you seem to be consistently ignoring). On sunny days you'll need less, so you'll have overcapacity. And that's completely ignoring other energy sources such as wind.
There's way more than enough energy coming from the Sun to meet our needs. It's not a difficult calculation. It''s a question of willpower and economics to develop the infrastructure to make it happen.
"There is simply no point whatsoever in paying approx 30 cents per kwh to get electricity via the Powerwall plus solar cells. "
The reason some people will be early adopters of this technology despite it being an economically poor choice at the moment is because they want a low-carbon energy supply. Moreover, it's not just about the USA. In many countries electricity costs more than 30c/kwh.
Seems to me that having storage so that you can use your energy at night, which is when you need it most, is going to help you recoup your investment in the solar panels a lot faster. Without storage you'd still be relying on energy from the grid except during the day.
+Shawn Dunne, wish you and your family well. Hope none of this fake health consequences touch you or your love ones ever. And no, I am not been sarcastic I am been honest
ReplyDeleteJose Gimenez Roca I spend a lot of time driving for my job and I live next to a major highway. I'm so sick of breathing exhaust fumes. I wish Shawn was right about fake health consequences but he isn't unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteTom Barron well Tom I am not a scientist or an expert but I do my best to learn from different sources and stay real. As far as I learn the major pollutant is not the car but electricity production. But don't take my word for it please do your own research. God bless.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor no 20% is the actual annual capacity factor. You have to realize 50% is the theoretical maximum as it's night time 50%of the time. Anything less than a really sunny day affects output negatively. Look at the numbers they are real, 20% is actually even optimistic in many areas.
ReplyDeleteHere is a really old link that compares the output of Fukashima to the greater installed capacity of German PV's actual output.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/doing_the_math_comparing_germa
Jose Gimenez Roca I'm good with it, the air we breath today is cleaner than any in the last 100 years.
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne
ReplyDelete"no 20% is the actual annual capacity factor. You have to realize 50% is the theoretical maximum as it's night time 50%of the time. Anything less than a really sunny day affects output negatively. Look at the numbers they are real, 20% is actually even optimistic in many areas."
Yes. I fully understand that. I included it in my calculation.
Let's look at the most pessimistic scenario and I'll break down the process so you can follow my working.
The total energy radiated by the Sun (L) is 3.846E26 W. The distance from the Sun to the Earth (D) is 1.496E11 m. Therefore the flux (power per square metre) received on Earth will be L/(4*pi*D^2) = 1367.5 W / sq m.
But, solar panels cannot convert all of this radiation into electricity. The typical efficiency of a panel (Ep) is 10-20%, so let's use the lower value. Therefore panels will only generate (L*Ep)/(4*pi*D^2), about 136 W / sq m.
But, the Sun is variable because it isn't always directly overhead but more importantly it is often cloudy. The energy they really generate will therefore by reduced by a factor Vs (variability of Sun). So your own number of Vs = 20% suggests we should reduce that 136 W / sq m by a factor of 5 to account for this, on average. Being pessimistic, however, the internet tells me that Vs may be as low as 5% (of their rated capacity - NOT 5% of the energy available !!!). Oh noes ! That means the power generated will only be a paltry 6.8 W / sq m.
But we should reduce Vs by a further factor of 2 since solar power is not available at night. We have to generate at least twice the energy we really need so that we may store it in batteries and use electricity on demand 24 hours a day. Since we've been very pessimistic, this will allow us to use solar power whenever we want, no matter how bad the weather gets. Most of the time the weather will be better and we'll have overcacpacity.
So the real amount of power received will be P = (L*Ep*Vs)/(4*pi*D^2), where Vs = 0.025. Which is about 3.4 W / sq m.
Next, the total energy used worldwide per year is around 150,000 TWh, or 5.4E20 J. Over the course of one year, our pessimistic 1 sq m of solar panel will generate a total energy given by P*time, which is 3.4 * 3600*24*365 = 1.07E8 J. Therefore the total area of panels we will need to supply the world's energy will be 5.4E20 / 1.07E8 = 5.05E12 sq m, or about 5 million square kilometres. The total land area of Earth is around 148 million sq km, so this is about 3.3% of the total. Ten times higher than my previous value because I'm being so pessimistic. It's roughly equivalent to the total area covered by cities.
Even in this scenario, it's clear that (with storage), solar can provide sufficient power for all energy needs even without any other energy sources. You will always be generating enough power to supply the current demand and have enough storage to last through each night, even with low-efficiency panels and terrible weather everywhere all the time. True, there would have to be a lot of large solar plants constructed, but many of the panels can be on existing rooftops, so we won't have to build over another 3% of the planet.
Then remember just how pessimistic this scenario is. A 10% efficiency for the panels is on the low side, the variability of the Sun does not really mean that panels will only produce 5% of their stated power (this is on an extremely cloudy day, which does not occur everywhere all the time - wide distribution of the panels plus storage will greatly reduce the effect of this), and there's nothing preventing you from including other energy supplies as well. So the total area is probably going to be closer to my initial 0.3% and not the hopelessly pessimistic 3% scenario, which is itself not prohibitive.
I don't object to nuclear power; I'm not sure why you posted that link. I am simply saying that it is completely wrong to say that solar cannot be an alternative or provide a large fraction of our energy needs.
ReplyDeleteJose Gimenez Roca That's the generally accepted fact as far as pollutants are concerned and vehicles are cleaner now than ever before but when you spend 8 hours staring at the exhaust of another vehicle you can't help but wonder what it's doing to the lungs. The roads are really busy nowadays. I suppose driving on the motorway is no different from living in a city like London where the air quality is worse than any other European capital.
ReplyDeletePoint is that if all cars were electric and all power was generated by solar panels air quality would be so much better than it is now. Pollution travels around the globe. Think about that. You breath it wherever you are. In Tibet or New York you are breathing the same particulates that have spread around the globe as everyone else.
Rhys Taylor you're still not using capacity factor correctly in your calculations.
ReplyDeleteCapacity factor is the actual demonstrated ratio of actual generation to nameplate generation. You're really arguing energy density which is an issue to a certain extent but not there issue I am talking about.
For example (let's just use round numbers to make the math simple). A 100MW PV installation would generate 100MW an hour 24 hours a day 365 days a year. That means total output for a year would theoretically be 876000MWH. But as we know the sun doesn't shine constantly the real world average capacity factor is around 15% but let's use an optimistic 20%.
That means you're actually going to generate 175200MW. That's a huge difference. The other problem is that you don't get to decide when or where you receive the power. Load must equal demand in practicality real time.
This shows you will need to generate WAY more than 2X the energy you need. And have batteries to match it on top of that.
None of your numbers account for transmission or regulation of load.
Shawn Dunne
ReplyDelete"That means total output for a year would theoretically be 876000MWH. But as we know the sun doesn't shine constantly the real world average capacity factor is around 15% but let's use an optimistic 20%.That means you're actually going to generate 175200MW."
But that is exactly how I've included the capacity factor in the calculation.
Shawn Dunne
ReplyDelete"The other problem is that you don't get to decide when or where you receive the power. Load must equal demand in practicality real time."
OK, you persist in ignoring the entire point of batteries despite apparently claiming to install them for a living. It's also clear you haven't actually read (or have wilfully misunderstood) what I wrote. Intentionally or not I have no choice but to agree with Tom Barron that you're just trolling. Sorry, but I'm done here.
Rhys Taylor you do not seen to understand the size and cost of the battery system required or the fact that batteries don't last forever
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor I think you mean your 'dunne' here.😁
ReplyDeletetbh I think Shawn could be a paid Troll but it won't make any difference. There will be loads of customers for the battery packs no matter what Shawn says and in 12 months time happy customers will be spreading the word preparing the way for the first Gigafactory to really start making a difference. It will be the first of many and Giga factories will soon be a major employer each one powered purely by renewable energy.
http://www.amazon.com/Revlon-RV544PKF-1875W-Tourmaline-Ceramic/dp/B000FS05VG/ref=sr_1_1/178-3149749-4403030?s=beauty&ie=UTF8&qid=1430756541&sr=1-1&keywords=top+rated+hair+dryers
ReplyDeleteObviously, I took this to an extreme to point out that solar PV and a small battery cannot replace the grid. I willfully and cheerfuilly ignore a lot of factors, such as we don't need to use 2KW late at night. And there are probably some straw man toasters in there too.
But the math looks correct to me There are probably some errors in there.
I have an idea! Lets play the 'lets waste our life wotking out where Fred messed up his calculations' game 😀
ReplyDeleteLike I say - give it a year and happy customers will be singing Teslas praises. Tesla haven't missed the mark so far I don't expect them to anytime soon.
Oh? Their forecast got cut by 40% in less than 9 months, just last year. I think they missed a mark by a HUGE amount there.
ReplyDeletehttp://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/investing/tesla-oil-prices/
I like Teslas. I park next to one of my employees Teslas every day. Its a nice car if you leave the A/C off. He got it cheap because the heater didn't work in Chicago.
Fred Beckhusen well if you try thinking instead of thionking you might earn enough to buy a Tesla of your own😂
ReplyDeleteAddendum - originally you spelt think - thionk and after my comment above you corrected it.
Ad hominem attacks now? The engineer works for me. Calculate how that works out , versus what you just said
ReplyDeleteFred Beckhusen " the engineer works for me"?......
ReplyDeleteShawn Dunne works for you? Now things are starting to make sense.
Both Trolls both on a pay role. Sad. Get a proper job.
40% fewer Teslas is somehow more in your world. And now you are trolling. Have a good day and goodbye.
ReplyDeleteTom Barron I have to agree with Fred Beckhusen (whose opinion I already respect) on that one. He took the time and trouble to post a pretty detailed analysis (still reading through it). Rejecting it because you don't like the conclusion is not a sensible or fair approach. Since he actually works in this field (and unlike Shawn I have absolutely no reason whatseover to doubt him), you ought to listen to him. Never be afraid of an ugly fact. That's how anti-science thinking starts.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying either of you are right, just that there's no reason for a flamewar here. Shawn was not even trying to explain himself. Mr Beckhusen took the time to do so, and that's worth a lot in my book.
Fred Beckhusen Like I say. Real world observations beat academic conjecture any day.
ReplyDeleteSo rather than wasting my life seeing where you messed up in your pretty basic synopsis, I will enjoy watching the revolution instead.
Rhys Taylor It's good brain food I will give you that. But ultimately Fred serves the same purpose as Shawn, he just posts a more convoluted explanation.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rhys.
ReplyDeleteThere may be better solutions such as this "40% efficient" cell tech, so you don't need to use precious and $$ PV to heat water.
http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2015/04/29-solar-panel-sudbury.aspx
Obviously there are combinations of various energy sources that makes sense to people in different situations. Sometimes solar PV's make sense. With a Tesla battery, you can use PV off peak. That is certainly good.
I just don't see Lithium ion as very cost effective grid replacement, even at large scale, where it would happen first. If it was, there would be large Li battery installs everywhere already
A liquid electrolyte battery is a better choice to me - it solves the life cycles issues without derating. That alone could cut costs by 2/3rds. And costs less then Lithium.
Fred Beckhusen
ReplyDeleteLithium ion battery and solar panel technology is ready to replace oil, gas, coal and gasoline right now even without the Giga factory. They aren't 'everywhere' as you put it because 1 there isn't the manufacturing capacity to have them everywhere and 2 they have only hit a price point where home storage is viable in the last year
The Giga factory is to manufacture the volume, not get the price down although that will be a happy side effect.
If you had solar panels you would be in a much better position to judge if a battery would save you money or not.
Fred Beckhusen seriously- using a CNN report about a stock market speculator cutting a forecast to claim that Teslas forecast has been cut by 40% is the very essence of trolling and indicates exactly your motives.
ReplyDeleteI don't need to analyse your calcs.
Tom Barron You must have skipped the part where I said I pay an engineer - who works for me - enough to drive a Tesla. My point then was that I like Tesla. There are also many more highly paid people here who also work for me. I can certainly afford a Tesla (or many more), and I can afford to pay a bunch of expensive people, and pay for a large building and all that goes along with it, too. But that is irrelevant to this.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the facts, with less hype and no drama. Can we stick to that? It is clear that this battery has great potential - and it has great marketing (and a lot of hype) . It should be clear by now - as Rhys started this post out with - that we need to work on the solar cells, too.
We can't use PV and batteries to replace everything. We can use them to power a lot of things.
Rhys Taylor no I'm not ignoring batteries, you just seem to they have an infinite storage capacity, while PV has large capacity factor neither is true.
ReplyDeleteOh, dear, we have a "news denier". Would you prefer Bloomberg, Ars Technica, Forbes, or Reddit?
ReplyDeleteIMy guess is Reddit. :-)
http://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2pkpqe/cnn_tesla_sales_forecast_cut_by_40/
Fred Beckhusen oh, dear, Its a stock market speculators forecast not a Tesla forecast fool and it references the same CNN report you originally posted!?!!!. BUT never mind that stupidity - how on this planet did you get hold of the 40% sales reduction forecast report so quickly hmm? look at the time stamps on the thread. You found that link about 20 seconds after my post.
ReplyDeleteClearly old trolling habits die hard. If you were genuinely just interested in the maths you wouldn't have even looked for that report. It seems you are used to arguing with pro Tesla people. Very suspicious no?
So you trolled twice now. Bet you make friends with/employ Shawn Dunne who has been proven to be a Troll many times.
I guess I got you to show your hand didn't I?
Tom Barron said: Tesla haven't (sic) missed the mark so far I don't expect them to anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteFebruary 2, 2015. *Tesla, which now has 10,000 employees, delivered a record 9,834 vehicles, missing the average analyst estimate by almost 1,000 and its own goal by 1,345*
Tesla also lost money, when they were expected to make a profit. Oops.
As I said before, I like Tesla. What I don't like are people who make claims they cannot back up.
Src: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/musk-boosts-2015-tesla-forecast-while-revamping-china-strategy
Fred Beckhusen Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Can I call you Fred the Troll from now on?
ReplyDeleteMy dear Fred the Troll - You started all reasonable with solar efficiency calcs etc pretending to be a curious academic which fooled Rhys, and now you are simply slating Tesla and pathetically trying to prove my generic non specific sweeping comments wrong by using specific data from a bloomberg news reports that has to qualify bold headlines with provisos and caviats and itself is subject to fierce debate and contextualisation.
Clearly you are a seasoned Tesla slater and not the curious academic you pretended to be. Which can only mean one thing... you are a Troll.
Now do you understand? You clearly missed the point the first time I told you.
Stupid question. Que twisting of facts, rapid subject changes, and spurious nonsensical comments from Fred the Troll
Well I am an academic and I can afford to look at a Tesla, from time to time and from a safe distance. I am, however, quite capable of judging for myself when someone is fooling me, thank you so very much.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear that we're now well past the rational debate section of the topic with zero chance of it ever returning to it, so I'm closing comments as per my standing "no flamewars in my threads" policy.