Shadow Minister salt heat storage is NOT four times the cost of nuclear and is NOT 10 times the cost of coal. Salt heat storage reduces the cost of generating energy from solar thermal power stations because smaller generators are needed and these generators can run continuously with a constant energy output (base load). Coal run as base load is a very expensive method of matching supply to demand. This is because the plants are best run continuously and for much of the time large amounts of energy are "earthed". The problem is not one of base load but is one of matching demand to supply - in other words it is a battery or storage problem. Why do you think we have off peak low rates of electricity supply?

The most likely future main storage for the system are private vehicle car batteries. Private cars are stationary most of the day but if connected into the grid they become a method of matching supply and demand. A million electric vehicles distributed around the grid solve the battery problem.

Peak power happens at different times of the day at different places. I am on off peak power from 7 pm to 7 am. at 10 cents / kwh.
I think you will see a lot of community power generation rather than every one being on the same supply line. There's no reason the usual power generators are only there for the power hungry users.
If you are using more than 10 kwh / day in a normal house you are wasting power.$2.00 / day. + service fee.60 cents / day.
After 3 years of 1.5 PV I have a credit of near $900. It's a matter of what works for you.

Shadow Minister
Simple answer is solar and wind power obviously does not provide base load.
However, it is a moot point if households consume less electricity than their solar/wind-fed batteries had stored throughout the day (which they do)- you did of course know that these devices come with storage devices, I presume- and not think that consumers actually drew their power from a direct feed from the sun?

Baseload is only important for facilities that must have a constant feed for safety purposes or higher energy consumption- meaning every building that is not a hospital, pumping station, factory or airport (or training facility for the above) would suffer nothing from the absence of a baseload input, so long as their power coverage exceeds their usage.

KH,

My comments were for bulk generation, not house holds.

For domestic load 90% of the cost is in the distribution. Your system with batteries cannot generate power at below 10c /kWhr if the cost of the system is depreciated. Lead acid batteries have a limited life, more so if they are constantly drained.

The only time you are really making a saving would be if you could disconnect from the mains permanently.

Actually, SM, the only way to make a saving is to connect to the grid permanently. That eliminates the need for batteries locally and supplements the load during peak demand for airconditioning.

a597, I have 4 people in my household, which is also my business premises. Average consumption for the home is nearer to 50kWh/day for us, largely because each room is airconditioned and it's nearly impossible to stop their use, human nature being what it is. My business, when it's running well (at the moment it's almost dead) is responsible for another 100 or so kWh/day. While solar may be some part of a solution for some, it's not a panacaea.

What I'd like to see a lot more investigation about is the use of Stirling cycle-based heat pumps. It seems to me that when combined with some other form of power generation these are very efficient at reducing the waste caused by the transfer of low-level heat to the atmosphere.

Yes Shadow- disconnecting from the mains is the whole point people purchase renewable sources- and they very much do generate enough power for my house to live on..

And judging from the lifespan of these products, against the time it takes for the cost of the installed device to pay itself off from saved electricity bills- it is clearly a substantial bargain.