Hi Peter, an interesting article, giving the user perspective that is so valuable.

In a previous role, I worked as Technical Manager for one of the largest retailers of solar power at the time and designed and installed a large number of remote area (off-grid) power systems. The two major issues that had to be taken into account, as you point out, were batteries (the best tech of the day was the cylindrical electrode lead-acid batteries) and the trade-off between storage and backup generation. I put batteries into a separate category for two reasons; firstly, they are relatively fragile and a poorly maintained battery will be easily damaged. Second, they are relatively expensive and users nearly always want to underspecify capacity, which makes maintenance that much harder. In addition, training users to properly maintain unsealed liquid-electrolyte batteries is not trivial.

The Powerwall batteries that Musk is manufacturing remove most of those concerns. You're not quite correct to say they are the same as in Tesla cars, but they are similar in some ways. They are Lithium Polymer cells, which are maintenance-free and have high-levels of built-in "intelligence" to ensure that they operate optimally for durability. As a result, they are limited to relatively low rates of discharge (2kW) because household voltage is significantly lower than that of the Tesla car and it is high current that destroys batteries. Secondly, a LiPo battery can be charged to around 80% of capacity in a very short time, while getting the additional 20% takes much longer (this is the basis for the Tesla supercharge stations), and it also means that even small periods of sunshine will provide significant charge top-up to a LiPo installation, where a PbH+ battery requires high current for long periods to get much in at all.

Within a few years the price of battery storage will drop by around an order of magnitude. PV price per Watt will drop nearly as fast. As a result, backup generation will be increasingly seen as unnecessary.

And users won't require training.

Good article and an interesting post by Minns.. one minor point. The Kyoto protocol was signed in Howard's time but famously it was not ratified until the Rudd government got into power.

As for the economics, sure the new battery products interest a number of people but the costs are still substantial and the grids may well change how they charge for electricity - introducing a set fee for access to the grid with reduced usage charges.. then it may become a choice between going off the grid and setting up all this still expensive equipment, or staying on and not bothering at all..

Considering the emissions that would be generated in manufacturing these batteries does anyone have any insight into how much carbon, if any, is actually saved by using them?

Mark, the Tesla "gigafactory" is entirely powered by PV to the best of my knowledge.

Your Grazer friend may be winning for now, and at the expense of ordinary power users and those who can't afford to invest in their own independent power?

But that price gouging day may soon be over, with schemes available for fully independent off grid power, costing less than the price gouged power bill, thanks to innovators like the aforementioned Tesla/micro grids.

[I have the solar system; now I just need an effective and affordable battery!]

Sort of like killing the goose that laid all those "gold plated" eggs.

Were I your (owed a living?) Grazer friend, I'd be looking for opportunities to use his (gold plated) power to promote additional on farm production!

(Irrigation/tramlines tilling/rechargeable electric vehicles/on farm production or processing/cooking/freezing/pasteurizing/providing fast food/coffee breaks/hot water/electric B-B-Q's or a fast recharging service for (the phone just died and a dead phone is no use at all in an emergency, but particularly a medical emergency where literal seconds count) travelers)?

If only to maintain a useful return on his investment!?

I mean there is just one constant in the entire universe, and that one constant is constant change!

And we need to adapt to change or be crushed by it!
Rhrosty.

Bring on the power wall baby!

Sounds a bit like a cross between a lithium ion battery and a polymer based ceramic fuel cell?

Perhaps a better informed Craig Minns could further enlighten us on this very interesting and timely development!

What do you know to be the expected life; and maybe you got out too soon mate?
Rhrosty.

Nothing to do with fuel cells, Rhrosty, it's a similar technology to that used in your mobile phone. Projected life (which is conservatively defined to be the period during which the battery provides full rated storage) is 10 years, but I expect that will be extended fairly quickly due to current advances in charging control.

I haven't left the field mate, I'm back at uni working on my electronic engineering degree with a major in energy systems.

If you installed batteries in 1997 there is no chance they will last to 2023. You must have changed batteries by now, 10 years is superb life, 25 is impossible. 20 to 25 for solar panels but they will have degraded by then. We live off the grid and have since 2009, we installed a new system in 2010. If the batteries last 10 years I will be surprised, we have 2kW of panels and 1180 AHrs of Pb batteries on a 48V system, with a 5000W, 7000W peak inverter, we're in Northern NSW and have never come close to running out of power. Lowest temperature corrected SOC I have seen is 80% after 14 overcast/rainy days, we are very frugal but live comfortably. We moved to this mild climate on purpose, so we don't need AC, heating etc The Tesla batteries bring nothing much new to to the system for me, nor for most RAPS users my concrete slab easily handles the Lead Acid batteries. Yes, I spend 5 mins once a month topping up the batteries with water but I consider this a good thing.

I have never had to use a generator in the 6 years we have been off grid nor do we own one.

I live in rural Australia and vote Green :) Last time I voted LNP was Hewson. We've long been ignored, started in the '70s and continues today.

I am looking at an electric motorbike, the Zero DS, but the $30,000 (with extra batteries) is just too much.

Just a dumb question from an ignoramus:

All the bits a pieces that go into solar power production, panels, batteries, etc. - were they made using solar power, or the traditional coal- or oil-fuelled power supplies ? In terms of CO2 production, how much CO2 is produced over the life (including their manufacture) of solar panels, batteries, etc., and how would this compare to the total amount of CO2 produced if all the power generated was instead generated by dirty coal and oil ?

Taking the production of all those bits and pieces into account, how much CO2 is saved over the life of a solar panel ?

Gord, it just shows how ignorant some people can be to even ask that question :)

Joe

Hi Moe, don't be too hard on yourself, even some quite bright people have trouble working through this.

At present, most of the energy embodied in solar PV production is derived from fossil fuel sources, hence Peter Lang's obsessing over ERoEI, however, that is changing. There is no conceptual or practical reason that solar PV, even using current Si technology which requires high temperatures to smelt the silicon, can't be produced using energy solely derived from renewable sources, including the energy needed to mine the raw materials.

Some manufacturers are already moving that way, notably Solar City, but others as well. It's an obvious way to go.

At that point, no CO2 is generated by the manufacturing process, other than that released as a result of the smelting of the oxidised silicon and that's both minimal and readily captured.

Hi Craig, thanks, but that wasn't the question: I assume that solar panels etc. can be conceivably produced using solar power only, but how much CO2 is generated by the production of those input technologies, those machines which make the panels, a la Piero Sraffa ?

Surely all that has to be included in the total production of CO2 as a by-product of the total, go-to-whoa manufacture and maintenance of solar panels, and all the ancillary bits ? For wind farms as well, all that cement and steel ?

A Fool can ask stupid questions of a King, obviously.

Joe

Joe, I don't pretend to know as much as Craig on this topic, but I do know something about power supply and how its made; with i.e., average transmission and distributions losses from current coal fired power, being in excess of 50% or in total, around an averaged 67%?

And I can see what you want him to say, that coal fired electricity, used to build any of the solar panels or batteries, may contribute some once only carbon to the atmosphere, as may occur as the minerals involved are mined?

However, we have other things that are possible, like solar thermal power, that not only competes with coal fired power on price but base load requirements as well!

And here I'm referring to private working models, not theory.

I believe we could do far better with a combination of thorium power, micro grids and quite massive automation or high tech manufacture.

Moreover, I've seen massive regenerative electric walking draglines used in open cut mines, and the diesel electrics mine trucks and loaders could become CNG electrics, to cut down both carbon and costs?

And given truck transportable models, see no reason why the obligatory diesels can't be replaced at the mine site with, thorium reactors?

We have enough thorium to power the world for 700 years, but our homegrown industries for thousands; if kept here exclusively for our manufacturing base, and the huge competitive advantage that would then confer.

Other places might be able to build cheaper ships, but then those other places aren't currently supplied with price gouged gold plated power!

And professional wages/salaries are lower here than in Germany or Japan? Power prices, dumb tax policy and dumber intermittent production, is why we're losing to the comp!

Given my wish list, which has to include nuclear power, we could build ships and subs for half that of Germany or Japan; let alone, need to import panels or ceramic fuel cells from either!
Rhrosty.

Steady on there Craig Minns, you appear to be wearing rose coloured glasses.

Solar panel installations require quite a bit of material, including copper, plastics of various types, aluminium, steel & other "stuff", the production of which certainly generates plenty of CO2.

It would be nice to get an answer that we can believe from blokes like you, who know. You should paint a full picture, not an idealised one.

As far as I'm concerned personally the global warming CO2 fraud has nothing to do with the advantages or otherwise of solar panel usage, but for many it still does. I certainly hope you are right about the battery technology.

Hi Hasbeen, the same argument applies to all the other inputs as applies to the PV materials. There is a ramp-up period of energy investment which has to be supplied from fossil fuels (carbon or nuclear), but the system can then become self-sustaining to a very large extent. It's a bit like lighting a fire, really. Whether there can be 100% reduction in CO2 emissions is not really a relevant question as long as the net reduction can be large.

I'm not going to get into an argument about climate change, there are many other good reasons to conserve fossil carbon. Every kilogram of CO2 released through burning highly reduced fossil carbon is just under 250g of fossil carbon lost to the atmosphere and hence made extremely costly to recover. It is possible to manufacture methane and other reduced carbon species from CO2, but it takes a lot of energy to reduce the oxidised form.

Joe, those are all important considerations, but a full accounting has to include the "savings" made as well. For example, how much copper and aluminium might be recovered from a distribution network that is downsized and converted to DC? What would be the energy savings as a result of not having to refine those metals from scratch (about 95% in the case of aluminium, including resmelt)?How much central generation and the losses associated with its distribution might be eliminated? How much will demand decline during the projected life of a new generator? And so on. These may all be modelled, but I am certainly not going to try to do it now.

The ERoEI that Peter Lang relies on is based on dodgy assumptions that really don't hold up. He is undoubtedly sincere, but just as undoubtedly, he is wrong.

Rhosty,

“Joe, I don't pretend to know as much as Craig on this topic, but I do know something about power supply and how its made; with i.e., average transmission and distributions losses from current coal fired power, being in excess of 50% or in total, around an averaged 67%?”

You know much less than you think you do. You overestimate transmission and distribution losses by an order of magnitude.

Hi Craig,

Yes, the total CO2 outputs from all of the factors of production in the manufacture of renewable forms of energy, and including the savings as you say.

Is that production of CO2 less than what would have been produced using coal, compared to the total CO2 produced over the life of those forms of energy generation ? Has anybody done that sort of study ?

Joe

Joe, I can't point you to such a study, although I'm sure there must be some in existence.

I would suggest, however, that given the much smaller quantity of non-renewable inputs, it is unnecessary to perform a comprehensive study to come to the conclusion that the amount of CO2 released is also proportionally smaller. If you have figures that contradict that I'd be interested in seeing them.

As PV is increasingly integrated into building envelopes, the relative amount of CO2 release is going to come down still further.

Wind and other renewables like hydro (which is really more of a storage than generation technology) present different problems to model, but once again, if the power required to produce the products that go on to make more power is not derived from non-renewable sources, then it is obvious that there will be less CO2 released than for equivalent amounts of power produced from such sources.

Basically, it's an interesting question and one which should be readily answered, but the absence of a definitive answer is not a bar to proceeding on the basis that the exact quantum of reduction is unknown. It's much more important for carbon trading.

Hi Craig,

I don't have any figures for anything, that's why I'm asking :) My question is: in the total manufacture and maintenance of solar panels, wind towers, go to whoa, and in their dismantling, replacement, disassembly, etc., how much non-renewable energy is required and so, how much CO2 is produced, in order to produce non-CO2-producing forms of energy ?

I suppose a related question would be: how much energy would be required from renewable sources, in order to produce, go to whoa, those means of renewable energy ? Would they require more energy to produce than the panels, towers, etc. eventually produce themselves ? Is there a net loss, or gain, of energy involved ?

Pretty stupid questions from an engineer's point of view, I'm sure.

Joe

Joe, not CO2 but energy at http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Draw some conclusions from this.

Also, see reference to this paper at http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

An argument that subsidizing PV's is bringing the price down to the point of standalone viability, by one of Australia's most vociferous wishful thinkers: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/5/25/policy-politics/grattan-says-solar-10-billion-waste-id-agree-if-it-was-still-2009. Still no reflection on the need for storage. What's it with these guys ignoring it? IMO it certainly can't be if we're to go far down the RE path. It's a blind-spot that completely undermines the clean future we're supposedly aiming for. Storage lowers the EROIE of PV's to virtual uselessness, with little prospect that technology breakthrough will improve the equation greatly (Prieto & Hall).

Re subsidie, if the price is coming down why are we still subsidizing as if it isn't?

Some Minnsy whimsy: "There is a ramp-up period of energy investment which has to be supplied from fossil fuels (carbon or nuclear), but the system can then become self-sustaining to a very large extent. It's a bit like lighting a fire, really. "

Really? No, the match continues to burn once struck because the reaction is massively exothermic compared to the activation energy, i.e. there is enough return on the energy input.

Think EROEI. Striking the match with nuclear and/or fossil fuel will get it started, but then it burns out because there is too much competing for the RE output for enough to be placed into building more RE infrastructure. Something has to give, either man trims back his civilization considerably to afford it, or the fire goes out.

Of course, continuing supply of FF and nuclear will mask this until it's too late to do anything about AGW in the time we have left to deal with it

Joe, it is indeed a foolish question to ask of someone who has already given you an answer. Asking the same question over and over expecting a different answer is what Einstein famously described as defining insanity.

Do you have any reason to believe that there will be a net carbon reduction through the use of renewables and if so, what is that reason based on? If not, why bother asking the question?

Luciferase, constantly referring back to inadequate sources from vested interests doesn't strengthen your argument. The first paper you refer to (non-peer reviewed, notably) is from people who all work in nuclear physics. The business spectator piece is all about the nature of the subsidy scheme and has nothing to do with the efficiencies of solar. I tend to agree with the conclusion that the solar power subsidy scheme was a stupid idea. It created a a false impression within the public that somehow solar power requires subsidy.

The scheme being run by solar city is much more sensible: the user pays nothing up front and repays the cost of purchase over 10 years through the energy generated

Still, at least you don't risk your reputation by promoting snake-oil, since nobody has any idea who you might be, although they do know your particular brand is especially smelly and ineffective.

Never mind, I'm sure you think you're important.

Hi Cfraig,

"Do you have any reason to believe that there will be a net carbon reduction through the use of renewables and if so, what is that reason based on? If not, why bother asking the question?"

I don't know sh!t about this, but if you're saying that there is no net reduction in CO2 production, then some might ask, what's the point of RE ? An answer might be: because there is less CO2, not none, being produced than would otherwise be produced. Okay, that's fair enough for me. Less in total, rather than none at all, that's okay.

Joe

Solar City, http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost#solarppa has a variety of plans that all suck heavily on the public teat, and for what ultimate purpose? With or without storage, AGW's progress will barely be affected.

Your fire lighting analogy, Minns, was a gem, thanks.

Elon Musk is a good enough businessman to know who butters his bread, and it won't be him whistling Dixie when the curtain comes down on the whole farce.

Snake-oil, indeed!

Forgot to mention re "The first paper you refer to (non-peer reviewed, notably) is from people who all work in nuclear physics.", the Weissbach et al. article in the reputable journal "Energy" is no less peer-reviewed than the rebuttal article by Raugei et al. (which you'd support no doubt), and subsequent articles on the matter of EROEI.

From http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy/ "Energy is an international, multi-disciplinary journal in energy engineering and research. The journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information for analyses..."

Throwing mud doesn't make you right.

Anonymous troll,
the link you posted was:
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

if this was in fact accepted by Energy then why did you not link to that? I note that you have still not done so.

Regardless, the piece is an irrelevance, for several reasons, quite apart from the vested interest of the authorship. I won't waste my time pointing out why, any competent reader can do so for themselves. I suggest you find one who can be bothered and ask for an explanation.

On the subject of direct PV subsidy, I do not think it is a good idea, because it gives the weak-minded the idea that somehow PV cannot stand on its own and it creates an on-going inequity.

However, it is not correct to say that PV is unique in being subsidised. Coal power here in Australia and other generation sources, including nuclear, are routinely subsidised overseas. In India, for example, farmers in some regions are provided with power free of charge.

Never mind, Anonymase, I'm sure you've convinced yourself.

Joe, I am not saying there is no net reduction in CO2 production, I am saying that I cannot quantify the amount of that reduction. To use an example close to your own heart, this is like saying that I know that some Aboriginal people were murdered by white settlers and authorities, but I don't know how many.

I refer you back to Herr Einstein's comment quoted above.

"...if this was in fact accepted by Energy then why did you not link to that?" Because you'd only get the abstract, and the published paper is quite well known to exist, anyway. Oh but do scrape your barrel.

Your "vested interest" slur is just more throwing turds in the sand-pit, where I'll not join you. Everyone has mankind's best interests at heart, including wishful thinking RE zealots, so why bother with diversion?

"On the subject of direct PV subsidy, I do not think it is a good idea.....". Agreed, but you'd rather it was indirect support, I suppose, like pricing carbon-based electricity out of the way. PV can't stand up without crutches. Right now, with PV installation hardware prices considerably down, the crutches should be shortened commensurately, but we're still paying big subsidies through the nose. Crikey, I even thought of buying one myself, but the payback time for my needs is based on perfect laboratory system performance and no borrowing costs. There's a lot of BS in the market-place.

You go on about Indian farmers as if it matters whether it's nuclear, FF or hydro? The fact farmers are supported and not city-dwellers does not crush your point?

Well, this is my fourth post and that's it for this skirmish and anything more on the matter. I've no intention of further subjecting myself to more of your diversions, wishful thinking and witless jibe. You're not even entertaining.

Anonymous Troll,
I have full access to papers published in Energy through my university. Feel free to post a link to the peer-reviewed paper and I'll have a look at it.

I'd rather PV and all other forms of power generation, including nuclear, which garners massive subsidies wherever it is used, were allowed to stand on their own. The Solar City model of free installation followed by repayment through sale of electricity generated over an extended timeframe is entirely sensible.

Wherever subsidies are used they distort the market, which was one of the points made in that unreviewed piece you referenced. Of course, that was why the authors chose to compare on energy inputs and outputs, since their own industry fails as soon as the economic costs of subsidy are considered.

I don't seek to be entertaining, Anonymazed, I'll leave that for those like yourself with nothing useful to contribute.

Hi Craig,

Well, like Edison and his attempts at a workable light bulb filament, I'm sort of asking the same question in different ways. I hope I don't have to ask it two thousand times :)

So, if, as you say, it's possible that there is no net reduction in CO2 from the total, all-up, production of RE technology, say solar panels and wind-farms, then one is entitled to ask, somewhat baffled, what is the point ? Combine that with huge subsidies to RE producers and the question becomes more urgent.

After all, where do those subsidies come from ? Government revenue. Where does government revenue come from ? To a large extent, tax-payers, and ultimately, from gross national product. Much of that product is actual production of goods and services, which presumably often use non-renewable fuel sources to generate any product. So, much of the subsidy to RE producers is generated from non-RE-based production.

Perhaps if the subsidy was removed, RE would have a cleaner bill of health. But could it survive without subsidies ?

In other words, could RE production survive without non-RE production and its tax generation ?

Surely someone has done the economic calculations on all of this ? Perhaps Henry Ergas ?

Just wondering - one does a lot of it when one is slightly insane :)

Joe

Joe, I don't say it is possible there is no net reduction, I say I don't know the exact amount of the reduction, but that the reduction exists is not in doubt. That is the third time I've said that, I hope it is clear now.

Could RE survive without subsidies? Yes, the cost of solar PV now is around the cost of new coal power and it is going rapidly down as production plant costs are amortised and as both efficiencies of scale of production and efficiencies of power conversion go up

Luciferase,
If only Panasonic, Origin, AGL etc, etc, etc had someone as wise as you to show them the error of their ways, those poor deluded fools...

http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/australia-primed-as-heartland-for-batterystorage-revolution-20150529-ghba6h

"Yet lithium-ion battery costs have fallen 94 per cent since 1991, while the energy packed into them per kilogram has increased. Bernstein sees usage costs continuing to fall by 20 per cent a year, cannibalising competing technologies for the next decade.

Belur won't talk dollar costs yet for Enphase's 1.2kWh battery, which comes with built-in inverter and software to communicate with the grid. But he insists that all up, the "plug and play" system will be competitive with Powerwall. Australia will be its global launchpad.

Meanwhile, Panasonic, a battery supplier for Powerwall and one of the "big three" lithium ion players alongside Samsung SDI and LG Chem, will launch next week an alliance with Australian electricity retailers targeting home storage.

Yet to be seen is how these suppliers align with local retailers. AGL Energy launched recently a 6kWh lithium-ion battery and is due to make larger sizes available later in 2015. Origin Energy is understood to be bringing forward its battery launch plans, potentially to the third quarter, while EnergyAustralia is in talks with Enphase on its battery, to add to their solar panel alliance."

Loathe as I am to respond, but... they're not remotely deluded. Make hay while the sun shines is the motto, and the sun shines brightly while subsidy levels remain sky high. Prices are down while subsidies are still way up world over, both for producers and consumers.

It's insanity, to the point I'm almost tempted to buy a system myself rather than look such a gift-horse (the tax-payer) in the mouth.

Sadly, none of it will make much impact on carbon abatement, even if there is some penetration into the energy mix, before sanity again prevails. It's a sad waste of time and money that should be spent on the true solution to AGW.

AH, well done Luciferase, as usual you're showing the world the way.

Don't you go giving into the evils of temptation from those mendacious fools spruiking their pie-in-the-sky solar scams! You're much too clever for that...

As I said, you're not even entertaining.

Oh, but you are.

Sour grapes make the best whine...

Luciferase,
I realise that as a peer-reviewed paper from engineering experts the piece I'm linking to below isn't quite up to your preferred quality standards. Please forgive me, but I thought it was important you got in touch with the deluded fools who produced it as soon as possible, so they don;t go throwing any more money away!

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

Best let Peter Lang know, they'll want to hear from him as well, I'm sure.

Thank you for serving up this recycled dung. You've completely and utterly pinned yourself to the mast of the good ship "Wishful Thinker", as if that was not already obvious.

I'll cite a peer-reviewed article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.324/pdf and raise you.

Jokes aside, I've got three words in relation to WWS, "affordability", "intermittency" and "storage". The web is chock-full of rebuttals/critiques of all aspects Jacobson's farrago of brain-farts, so I'll not add to the cacophany.

Sweet dreams.

"The web is full of"

Code for, "I have no ideas of my own, so I trawl the web hoping to find stuff to feed my confirmation bias".

In this case, it's also a revelation that one hasn't read the cited reference, which was for a paper published on 27 May this year.

I think perhaps its not the web which is full of it...