Climate change and human responsibility

[Fuzz]

I'm sure it makes sense as an individual in some areas for rooftop solar. But it isn't an efficient use of dollars, particularly when you factor in all the tax rebates, incentives etc. Then you have the costly controllers, wiring, difficult installation etc that make way more sense when installed at scale. You also have the advantage of a utility being able to predict generation and adjust the grid as necessary.









https://www.denverpost.com/2015/07/2...scale-systems/


There are no shortage of studies that show this. So if we have limited dollars, it makes more sense to not pay home owners to do this, and instead spend the money at grid scale.



The drawbacks of course are the need for larger transmission lines, but most of that exists through cities already. You also need land, which is the biggest issue in some areas, not at all in others. But warehouse roof solar probably makes a lot of sense in that regard, since warehouses are large power consumers, are usually clustered in an area, and have loads of flat roof area.



It also threatens to increase the wealth gap, while wealthier people managed to get a subsidized system that may even make them money, while the poor have no ability to access that and will end up paying higher electricity costs to offset the added costs.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

I said the sacrifices are little compared to the worst case consequence. The worst-case scenario is co-extinction, or the 'extinction domino effect', or in other words, mass extinction of human beings. I'm not saying that is likely at all. But if that's the worst-case scenario, then all climate change actions are pretty trivial in comparison.

You also said that you look at action on climate change as something akin to Pascal’s Wager. So that we are clear, Pascal’s Wager concerns the belief in God. If you believe in God and it turns out that God exists, then you are granted eternal happiness. If you believe in God and it turns out that God does not exist, then nothing happens. On the other hand, if you don’t believe in God and it turns out that God exists, then you suffer eternal damnation. If you don’t believe in God and it turns out that God does not exist, then once again, nothing happens. As such, it is a safer bet to believe in God. Agree?

If so, for taking action on climate change to be akin to Pascal’s Wager, you are stating that to act on climate change and have climate change in fact not be a serious problem would be no different than to not act on climate change and for climate change to not be a serious problem. So once again, I ask you, what do you believe the sacrifices are of acting on climate change now?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

There are also many brilliant professors who have shown carbon taxes do work in incentivizing people to be more energy efficient.

No doubt there are brilliant professors that will say exactly what you are suggesting here, and I am certain that if I asked you to provide support for this claim, you very likely could. However, did you have any particular economists in mind when you posted this? When was the last time you reviewed their published work extolling the virtues of a carbon tax that made you confident enough to make this claim? Or rather, do you just assume this to be true? Here's another question: what is the price on carbon that these brilliant professors are recommending?

[transplant99]

Scientists predicting solar activity that will put us in a short cooling down type era starting later this year.

I know nothing about this stuff, but it sure sounds fascinating.

Scott McIntosh, a physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says the latest information would suggest solar cycle 25 may actually be stronger than 24. “The present Geomagnetic data indicate a higher SC25 [solar cycle 25],” he tweeted.

The decline in sunspot activity through cycle 24 was worrisome to some space weather scientists in that it suggested a return to a lengthy “solar drought,” reminiscent of the Maunder Minimum period of 1645-1715. Records show the sun was essentially spotless for this lengthy period, coinciding with the “Little Ice Age” in Europe and tickling the interest of scientists to wonder whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between solar behavior and Earth’s climate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...=.c91b28bda795

[flamesfever]

When you consider that vast amounts of energy in the form of coal, oil and gas, that took hundreds of millions of years to store in the sediments, has been burned off over an extremely short period of time (+/- 150 years), I can appreciate that this would probably have a significant impact on our environment.

As only 10% of world population is primarily responsible for most of the hydrocarbon energy use above, it falls on them to find the solution. However, I fail to see how a technological solution will avoid chaos in the world economy.

Also, as the increase in hydrocarbon energy is linked to the increase in world population, I don't see how we should work feverishly to change the former while ignoring the latter.

So many questions, and so few answers.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The big argument with roof top versus utility solar usually comes back to the utilities hate it because their customers are not consuming as much as they used to. Our net-metering arrangement changed because of this. Our electric utility saw a large number of users going solar, so they changed the net-metering as a way to dissuade possible customers. Frankly, if you are generating all your power needs, and have storage so you aren't reliant on the grid except for a heartbeat, you are the utilities' biggest enemy. Why would they support distributed power instead of a centralized utility? Hurts their bottom line and ability to control their customer.

[Fuzz]

I don't think that is the biggest argument at all. That's just bickering. I laid out reasonable points as to why utility scale is superior. People with home solar want it both ways. Free power, and grid backup whenever they need it. That's not fair to everyone else who can't have rooftop solar. You couldn't have net metering without the utility grid and non-solar backup to support it.



You generate power when you don't need it, and suck it back from the grid when you do. "But onsite storage! Tesla power walls!" All this is an inefficient waste of resources. Maybe good for the individual, but bad for society.

[zamler]

By the numbers, the average home in Alberta uses 7,200 kWh per year the average home solar system will generate 1276 kWh/year. Given the cost, carbon footprint to produce and maintain the system I don't see how it makes much sense. Now on an industrial scale solar may be better but I don't have those numbers.

BTW Calgary has the most sunlight on average of any Canadian city.

[Fuzz]

Zamler, curious where that number is from?


If it is the link below, that's the annual average equivalent of full sunlight hours in Alberta), not average potential.



https://energyhub.org/alberta/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Zamler, curious where that number is from?

I looked up several sources they were all similar so what I posted should be accurate.

[Fuzz]

Ya, it just doesn't seem right. Can you post one?

[Scornfire]

It'd be a small solar system to only generate 1276 kw/h per year in Calgary

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by zamler

I looked up several sources they were all similar so what I posted should be accurate.

That might be for a smallish system, 1.5-2kW?

There was a post by a Calgary redditor a few years back that gave great details on the performance of their 5 kW system. It generated about 4800 kWh for the entire year (capacity factor of 11%), not much less than their annual consumption.

https://imgur.com/a/aJ4BG

However, as they point out (and Fuzz has noted as well), production doesn't match consumption, with 75% sold back to the grid. You can also see how terrible solar is in the Alberta winter. This seasonal limitation is why solar, utility or residential, will always be a minor generation source for high latitude regions like Alberta.

[zamler]

https://energyhub.org/solar-energy-maps-canada/

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by zamler

https://energyhub.org/solar-energy-maps-canada/

Yes, That's 1276 kWh per kW per year, that's how much a 1kW system would produce, a 1kW system is relatively small

[zamler]

Originally Posted by accord1999

However, as they point out (and Fuzz has noted as well), production doesn't match consumption, with 75% sold back to the grid. You can also see how terrible solar is in the Alberta winter. This seasonal limitation is why solar, utility or residential, will always be a minor generation source for high latitude regions like Alberta.

What about large scale solar farms with battery buffering? I find it hard to do actual math there is so much garbage info to sort through.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think that is the biggest argument at all. That's just bickering. I laid out reasonable points as to why utility scale is superior. People with home solar want it both ways. Free power, and grid backup whenever they need it. That's not fair to everyone else who can't have rooftop solar. You couldn't have net metering without the utility grid and non-solar backup to support it.

Utility scale is likely superior, but its not the only way to leverage solar. This is part of the problem with people addressing the climate science issue. They think there is one magic bullet, when there needs to be a 30 round magazine full of bullets to solve this problem.


Residential power generation is a great solution as well. And no, it wasn't home owners who came up with this idea, it was the utilities themselves. The problem was they didn't think that so many people would have such large installations that they would not need to leverage the grid tie-in, and then make their money off the differential. Because vendors have come in and are providing over-sized installations, ones that generate an excess of electricity, the utilities are finding less demand for their product and paying out more than they anticipated. Sucks to be them. Good for the people that had the wherewithal to build a better mouse trap, and then homeowners for being able to take advantage of it.

You generate power when you don't need it, and suck it back from the grid when you do. "But onsite storage! Tesla power walls!" All this is an inefficient waste of resources. Maybe good for the individual, but bad for society.

Seems really efficient for me and my neighbors. Seems really efficient for our utility as well, as they can spin down the gas and nuclear generation units when demand is low. In a world where we want people to be more self-sufficient this seems like a perfect solution. The only way it could get better is if I didn't need the utility heartbeat, and could be totally self-sufficient, but that is a legislated requirement for systems in my market. Now THAT ain't fair!

Originally Posted by zamler

By the numbers, the average home in Alberta uses 7,200 kWh per year the average home solar system will generate 1276 kWh/year. Given the cost, carbon footprint to produce and maintain the system I don't see how it makes much sense. Now on an industrial scale solar may be better but I don't have those numbers.

Wow, why are the numbers so low? I generate that much in a month with the exception of the very winter months. I would think that Calgary would generate a ton during the summer with the longer days, which would up the generation? Why does Calgary generate so little when they have so many generating hours to rely upon?

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by zamler

What about large scale solar farms with battery buffering? I find it hard to do actual math there is so much garbage info to sort through.

The upfront investment vs uninspiring RoI and land procurement would be a concern, as the technology is still bulky tbh. I don't imagine any utility companies would take the plunge unless/until some miniaturization and efficiency breakthroughs are made

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

The upfront investment vs uninspiring RoI and land procurement would be a concern, as the technology is still bulky tbh. I don't imagine any utility companies would take the plunge unless/until some miniaturization and efficiency breakthroughs are made

This goes to the heart of everything, we are not going to see sustainable solutions en mass until they are palatable to the market. Taxing carbon, tossing incentives around etc. will barely make a dent, at best.

Consider the average vehicle people buy, an SUV that gets 26mpg that's what people want. If everyone drove a Prius gas consumption would drop by 50% but the market says no.

Originally Posted by New Era

Utility scale is likely superior, but its not the only way to leverage solar. This is part of the problem with people addressing the climate science issue. They think there is one magic bullet, when there needs to be a 30 round magazine full of bullets to solve this problem.

Exactly, the problem is massively complex, so much so that in reality no one has anything close to a viable solution.

[Fuzz]

Here's another analysis done for Ontario, bit of a long read, but the point is here:

I determined that a professionally installed 11 kWh PV array system would cost about $28,000. I don’t have that kind of cash — I would have to borrow the money. (If I had the cash, I would still use the same interest rate, as an “investment opportunity lost” factor). I came up with five scenarios.

1. $28,000 borrowed at 5.0 per cent, amortized over the 25-year life expectancy of the system.
2. $28,000 borrowed at 5.0 per cent, amortized over 10 years.
3. The impact of a 30 per cent installation grant, similar to what Alberta introduced this past August, with a 10-year amortization.
4. The impact of a 30 per cent installation grant with a 25-year amortization.
5. A $38,000 loan to include a $10,000 storage battery for surplus power, with a 25-year amortization.

https://www.canadiancontractor.ca/ca...ar/1003282380/


The only scenario that breaks even is the one with a 30% rebate. I think that 30% rebate would be far better spent on utility scale, as shown in the numbers I posted previously. In my mind it is wasting capital to give it to home owners.