OT Solar energy generated in the UK.overtook coal last Summer.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-panels-electricity-coal-power-stations-uk-sun-a7344326.html
Plus:- How to get paid twice for electricity in the future. Already happening in Germany. Possible new source of income?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is this why all those people who had panels installed are now being pestered to have local storage installed as well. My friends say the way its being explained makes no sense to them, how can inefficient batteries, for this is what they are one assumes, actually make you more subsidy and or save money more than feeding excess back into the grid? It sounds bonkers to me. Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I thought you got paid for the energy that your panels generated regardless of whether it got fed back into the grid or you used it. That might explain it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But who checks it? Surely this sort of idea is very easy to fiddle by simply feeding the same power through it twice thenm once from the cells then again from the battery. Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Its because you are paid for the electricity you generate, regardless of how much you use, if any, so if you can use all of it all too by storing it and using it when needed you save on electricity bills too On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:01:07 PM UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:01:07 UTC+1, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Only because you don't understand it. Your friends must be pretty thick. FIT payments are for power generated, not power exported. So, even if you use the power generated yourself, you still get paid for it. So if you can store some of the power generated in batteries, you can use it later. So cutting back on your (imported) electricity bill.
Looked at it myself. For the money saved,the outlay is far too great. However who knows at some time in the future?
In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or store) it. You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and get paid. Thus you get paid twice. Once for importing, and once for exporting. Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving the intermittancy problem!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
You wouldn't care to put some numbers to that would you, bearing in mind that the market leader, the Tesla Powerwall, has a miserable 6.4kWh capacity? http://tinyurl.com/hfab5u3
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT), harry

Or maybe they are simply question the morality of such a system and can't believe they have it right?

Or 'My cash cow as I spit on other electricity users' (as you call it).

Brilliant. Was it some offspring of the person who first though selling the idea that sucking cigarette smoke into your lungs would be a 'good earner' by any chance?

Win win (and even more spit for the rest of us). ;-(

What about the money earned ... after all, I'm sure *we* can all manage a bit more for you?

Well, hopefully this whole FIT BS was an EU thing and once we are out it will be scrapped for the immoral thief it is and you will be forced to pay us our money back! Hurrah!

Who is 'they' in their case OOI? Is it other electricity consumers (who were never asked if it would be acceptable (for good reason obviously)) like it is over here?

That's fine. Being paid for any energy you supply TO the grid and at std commercial rates makes some sense (assuming we aren't standing down other generation to compensate that).

That sounds sensible (not).

But not any of the moral or environmental problems? Not that any of that bothers you of course, too busy counting our money .... (for now anyway) <weg>
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And produce obscene electricity prices which will fuck industry big time.

Nope, because its never going to be economic to have enough batterys to power the heating and aircon etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an idea is.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.
There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough power to satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their electric car) if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods of the day/year.
Ditto for the majority of companies who don't use electricity as a "raw material" in their production.
The fact that the storage costs aren't economic, doesn't make it mathematically impossible.
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

harry has never shown any ability to do sums.

But we don't, except in trivial amounts.

The storage costs are worse than uneconomic.
--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/16 12:44, tim... wrote:

Except we don't. Which is where the mathematics shows it to be completely unrealistic. And the mathematics doesn't just show its uneconomic, it shows that for a broad range of 'possible' its not in fact *possible* either.
Renewable energy *storage* is just cat belling.

???
I think you are mad. If someone says to me 'this burger costs £5' and I say 'I only have £2 in my pocket' the mathematics is telling me I can't have that burger unless I steal it.
(Of course as a reneawable energy person the concept of stealing from others disguised as an altruistic act, comes naturally...)

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I know that we don't
the premise is that someone has invented a method and the response was "he can't have, because it can't work"
I'm quite prepared to accept genuine engineering reasons why this "new" storage proposal doesn't work, but the OP's claimed reason is just false

Rubbish.
We have the basic technology now. Just fill your garage and garden shed up with car batteries.
Oh people don't have garages anymore, Oh dear, what a sensible move that was.
That this costs more in batteries than just buying the electricity from the grid doesn't make this mathematically impossible.

But that isn't the premise.
No-one mentioned that it was impossible because you only have 2 pounds, the original claim was the equivalent of "you can't buy the burger because there are enough cows".

Nothing in my post suggest that I support the concept that this technology should be subsidised
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/16 13:30, tim... wrote:

Correct. It cant.

There are no 'new' storage proposals. All are easily calculated and all are well known, well tried, and discarded technology.

Wont do the job. Do the maths. There probably isn't enough lead in the whole world.

Well it does, if it bankrupts them so they starve instead of freeze.
Like I said, ALL the sums have to add up, not just one.
For example,. simple potential energy calculations show that I have very similar potential energy in Cape town, as I do here, therefore I ought to be able to get there wihout using any energy.
The problem is that I also have to visit every place in between and elbow out of te way w2hatever was there first......and that is an additional element that is not incorporated into the simplistic orginal sum.
All I need for a mobile phone battery to get me to Cap town is viable teleportation.....
All we need for renewable energy to be only half as useless as it is, is viable storage.
But who will bell the cat?

--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


but there are
They are the same new storage mechanisms that the auto industry is "sure" that it will develop to make electric cars viable.

try telling that to the Automotive industry. They are investing million in it.
Personally I don't believe that their breakthrough is a close as they are claiming, but they are mamking some progress

I wasn't suggesting it as a viable method for the whole country.
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And these new storage methods are what? I'm interested. Different batteries, i.e. different combinations of electrode materials? Or some sort of fuel cell, or ICE cars running on hydrogen, or what? What power density are they talking about?
I've grown suspicious over recent years about claims for this or that technology that's 'being developed' or 'just around the corner'. It's always jam tomorrow, never jam today. And if jam today does eventually arrive, it's always much less tasty and spread very thinly and is generally disappointing compared to what was promised, even though packaged in a wonderful presentation jar with pretty ribbons (green ones, of course), and presented to the sheeple as a wonderful planet-saving development by a fat cat who's thinking only of the subsidies he's going to get.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/16 20:14, Chris Hogg wrote:

In a millenium we will have solved the problem of how to conatain a sun and have fusion power, which will be stored in batteries made of unicorn horn and pixie dust, that will enable them us fly a passenger place three times round the world without recharging.
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Tesla Powerwall.

There do exist large-scale battery storage banks:
"The largest grid storage batteries in the United States include the 31.5MW battery at Grand Ridge Power plant in Illinois and the 31.5 MW battery at Beech Ridge, West Virginia. Two batteries under construction in 2015 include the 400MWh (100MW for 4 hours) Southern California Edison project and the 52 MWh project on Kauai, Hawaii to entirely time shift a 13MW solar farm's output to the evening"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage#Batteries>
so it does seem to be economically viable, otherwise these firms wouldn't be doing it and it sure isn't "cat-belling", whatever the fuck that is.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 08:48:15 +0100, Mike Tomlinson

I remember it being suggested here a while ago, that every renewable energy installation should be made to have its own local battery storage with sufficient capacity to tide it over the hours of darkness, dull days, doldrums or whatever.
For small island communities, battery storage may be viable and the only way they can extend the availability of electricity, cost being of lesser importance in that situation.
But for a whole country such as the UK, you'd be looking to store very much bigger amounts of energy: 35GW times as many hours you expect renewables not to be performing. For example in the depths of winter and a 'blocking high' over Northern Europe lasting say three days, that's 2520GWh, or 25,200 of those 100MW Southern California Edison project batteries. And you'd actually have to have considerably higher output from the renewables in order both to re-charge those batteries and at the same time supply the grid in the normal way.
Whether that's a reasonable way to look at it, I don't know. There seems to be an increasing number of planning applications for diesel generation installations to cope with short-term peaks in demand on the Grid (STOR), see http://tinyurl.com/zmmxmlz . Massive battery capacity wouldn't be required there, any more than it is from the diesel generators, a few MW for an hour or so here and there would seem to be fairly typical.
Euan Mearns has a hard look at the possibilities of battery storage: http://tinyurl.com/glz33ux
As for cat-belling, it's been explained here several times recently.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.