a recurrent theme seems to appear on these forums where the average punter wanting to do the right thing hopes that by investing in solar PV panels ,they will instantly cure all the energy sapping devices and poor design of the house.
They should not be used as an instant cure . they are not.
First principles should always be to REDUCE need and improve PASSIVE design.
By passive design I mean simple things like orientation, layout ,eaves, window placement etc ..i.e those parts of the design that do not rely on moving parts .
Now that solar power has become so mainstream , many companies (and individuals) simply use the installation of solar panels as a tradeoff to enable a bigger house or pool .
that aint sustainable.
the problems with the solar power bandwagon
(45 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 7:58:16 pm from IP #
-
swanning_it
MemberDave, whilst I agree with the vast majority of your post, I disagree with your last statement "that ain't sustainable". Why ain't it? The world is a funny old place where individuality is seen as positive and if you tell everyone they "must" conform to your ideals of a square shoebox, they may just "chuck out" the whole sustainable theme altogether. It has been stated many times on this forum (and elsewhere), that even small changes help. By all means, encourage the changes you speak of, but don't be surprised if people reject at least some of your perceived design concepts.
Personally, I like the idea of a bigger house and nice big pool.......in fact it's just what I'm doing, but I am trying to make it as "sustainable" ("green" if you prefer) as I can, without being told I can't do that and should only consider an 8 square sardine tin............
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 8:28:31 pm from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberAnd passive design is not expensive. It might add 10-15K to the cost of a new build and save reduce grid power demands much more than an equivalent PV installation. And 50% of energy use in a house is occupant driven meaning that the electricity bill can double within the same residence depending on whose living in it.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 8:33:38 pm from IP # -
At the end of the day solar is becoming more popular and for me that is a good thing. I don't care what the motivation is because it makes sense to produce electricity from the sun. If people can afford it why not. If they don't do it the pool or whatever still goes in. Might as well offset some of the energy use.
One of the benefits of solar anything is that people at least are interested in their energy use. They are aware of their consumption and think a bit more about how they are using it. The poster seeking more information has taken the hardest step, they are looking at their power use and taking it into account when they make decisions, whatever the reason.
Two years ago I could count on one hand the number of solar systems in my area, now their are hundreds. And they are popping up all over town.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 9:24:15 pm from IP # -
afred
MemberThe whole concept of homeowners becoming power generators is a misguided one in the first place!
With all the subsidies of RECS etc spent so far, there could be in Australia a prototype of the kind and scale of solar generator operating in Spain. Thats the kind of power generator that can really make a difference to the demands of the grid. And as a utility such a facility would atypically have capital equipment with a design lifetime of 30yrs and proper maintainence.
With the home PV installations, the probability of grid-tie inverters going to landfill in 12years+ time is very high indeed. You can see now the pricing of grid-tie inverter competition, and sorry to burst so many peoples bubbles, but they are not cheaper because of technology or quantity, but by design.
You just have to study the availability of different components and MTBF to realize this.
If you buy a more expensive inverter such that your underrating it, you probably will achieve more lifetime, but the penalty is the conversion efficiency will be less.Politically the home PV installations is charming, and makes a lot of people feel good, it also has a lot to do with the promise of inventing green jobs. It takes lots more people to run around installing/repairing home PV s than it would take to build central utility solar installations I would guess.
I'm also thinking that the home PV installation industry is only going to be sustainable whilst people get suckered into the schemes and subsidies remain.
Whereas large utility installations could well be self-sustainable especially after a price on carbon.So I entirely agree with the first post for homeowners
"First principles should always be to REDUCE need and improve PASSIVE design."
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 9:55:16 pm from IP # -
I agree with dave lawrence that "First principles should always be to REDUCE need and improve PASSIVE design." Putting in solar is most certainly a Good Thing (in my view), but I'm concerned that we'll get to the point where people are putting in solar solutions but not changing their consumption habits. They may then use the fact that they've got solar as a reason why they're able to consume more.
Solar is Good, but education in conjunction with solar is Better.
Afred, you said that "If you buy a more expensive inverter such that your underrating it, you probably will achieve more lifetime, but the penalty is the conversion efficiency will be less." I'm not sure this is true. I've got an SMA 4000-TL 4000 watt transformerless inverter, and as yet only have 1.9kW of panels connected to it. It's got a maximum efficiency rating of 97%, which is about what I'm seeing based on real data.
"The whole concept of homeowners becoming power generators is a misguided one in the first place!" How so? I'm not sure that you actually explained that. Why can't homeowners become micro power generators as part of a distributed grid? I agree that centralised power generation is also needed, but I don't see why one should exclude the other.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 10:11:14 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberYou seem to have glossed over the benefits of micro power generation, alfred.
1. The education of the homeowner about power usage. Their own micro generator and metering enforces the "use less is best" concept everytime they glance at their meter (mine is positioned directly under my computer monitor, and as I work from home, at my desk mostly, it's viewed almost constantly)
2. People can actually make (save) money from electricity sales and reduction from their own micro power station.
3. Localised networks reduce the need of transmission line upgrades.You're assuming everyone will ignore their system and let it degrade accordingly. Perhaps most have been interested enough to install it, that they will be interested enough to maintain it. Component failure is not just limited to homeowners, it can and does occur on large scale installation as well, but in my opinion, the micros are part of the solution......not the entire solution. What you suggest is important to the big picture, no one disputes that fact, but centralised power generation is not the entire picture.
As for the first principle.......I would have thought it was to understand the clients requirements and work toward them with sustainable solutions. Remember, 8 million or so homes in Australia are existing. The new builds make up a small portion. Suggesting someone forget the solar panels on their 10 year old palace and instead pull off their perfectly good roof to give them eaves will probably be met with some degree of trepidation.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 10:21:51 pm from IP # -
afred
MemberThe efficiency of an inverter is NEVER a flat line, just not possible. The quoted rated efficiency will be for a power conversion close to the rated power. Which is why for best efficiency the inverter should be matched with the PV power capability.
"Why can't homeowners become micro power generators as part of a distributed grid? "
because, in my opinion it is being subsidized
and for that there is no real benefit.
Does not reduce any amount of carbon emitted by the generators
You take on the responsibility of maintaining a utility, after your guarantees run out, you will have to pay and pay for service calls etc.
It is government funds wasted, which could instead be used for real alternate energy
utility installations that benefits everybody.Sure, you feel good about yourself having installed PV, but does jack s*** in the greater scheme of things (grid)
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 10:29:17 pm from IP # -
"As for the first principle.......I would have thought it was to understand the clients requirements and work toward them with sustainable solutions. Remember, 8 million or so homes in Australia are existing. The new builds make up a small portion. Suggesting someone forget the solar panels on their 10 year old palace and instead pull off their perfectly good roof to give them eaves will probably be met with some degree of trepidation."
I did not start this thread denigrating solar panels ,or suggesting pulling off perfectly good rooves as the above post suggests .
I started it to raise an important point which appears to have been missed by some .
as for first principles being to understand clients requirements and then working towards sustainable solutions , yes that is very important but lets not kid ourselves that the sustainablity aspect does not get diluted dramatically 95 % of the time in the quest for a chlorinated swimming pool .
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 10:50:45 pm from IP # -
"Personally, I like the idea of a bigger house and nice big pool.......in fact it's just what I'm doing, but I am trying to make it as "sustainable" ("green" if you prefer) as I can, without being told I can't do that and should only consider an 8 square sardine tin......"
one of the first principles of sustainable is to keep it small. house are too big and getting bigger. check any number of links by googling on that concept.
nobody suggested a sardine tin, although maybe there is merit in that.Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:03:24 pm from IP # -
afred
Member"$5billion dollar ANNUAL diesel fuel rebate to the mining industry"
that is a rebate!
for tax that should not be paid, because that amount of tax is
for road maintenance, but that fuel was not consumed by transport on government maintained roads.
Sorry, but we are not all stupid here to swallow BS while some want to stay in their fairy tale land.The title is about "solar power bandwagon"
which I think i am addressing very well.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:05:10 pm from IP # -
"The efficiency of an inverter is NEVER a flat line, just not possible." OK, whatever. The average efficiency I'm getting out of mine is around 96-97%. The 4000-TL supports two strings of panels, and I've got all my current panels on the one string, and so therefore would be correctly matched. I've got spreadsheets to back it up. Mmm, Excel spreadsheets...
One of the reasons I'm in agreement with Dave about the need to 'reduce' usage and go with fundamental solutions such as passive design (which *can* be retrofitted/introduced to existing houses, although admittedly not as well as for new designs) is that even if you manage to offset all of your usage, it doesn't mean you can exist without the grid. If you're generating most of your power from solar between 11am and 1pm but using most of your power before and after that time, then we're still going to need a base load capability that'll support that usage.
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:05:12 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
Member"lets not kid ourselves that the sustainablity aspect does not get diluted dramatically 95 % of the time in the quest for a chlorinated swimming pool."
And that possibly is the greatest challange you face as a designer Dave. Suggesting someone cannot have a chlorinated pool (as an example) will probably not convert any new client to the "sustainable" side.....instead, it's more likely to get them offside, whereas understanding why they want that pool may be very important. It may turn out that you actually find they love hearing the sound of the water that the little statue piddling into the pool at grannies place gives and you find that a small water feature might fill their needs equally as well as a 25m lap pool that they may never use!
Remember that archetect from Perth? The one that refused to allow a couple to have a tool shed (on 36 acres) because it would detract from the aesthetic appeal of his (unusual) design?
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/roof-design-for-solar-pv-shwYou know it has been said that fanatical beliefs are almost circular......the far left almost meets the far right and vice-versa! Do you see the comparison here? You skoffed at the archetect for being a bit fanatical about aesthetics over practicality (let's face it, on 36 acres a machinery shed of some kind is imperative), yet it may be suggested that refusing a pool in a hot climate because of "sustainability" may be just as fanatical, but from the opposite side of the circle!
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:18:00 pm from IP # -
Swanning_it, really? We're in our 10th year of drought and we've got a potential energy crisis looming, and you think someone is potentially a fanatic if they advocate against domestic swimming pools? That would seem to be a bit of a long bow...
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:25:43 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberAn example Karl, an example!
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:27:25 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberOK, we're in our 10th year of drought (not here, all dams I think now 100% or very close...drought broken, but certainly not forgotten) and an energy crisis looms.
Let's all go back to living in caves and not showering! Wonderful, when do we start!
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:31:25 pm from IP # -
in response to...swanning it ..who said ...
"You know it has been said that fanatical beliefs are almost circular......the far left almost meets the far right and vice-versa! Do you see the comparison here? You skoffed at the archetect for being a bit fanatical about aesthetics over practicality (let's face it, on 36 acres a machinery shed of some kind is imperative), yet it may be suggested that refusing a pool in a hot climate because of "sustainability" may be just as fanatical, but from the opposite side of the circle!
....
good point , yes i totally agree . because in my work I am constantly biting my tongue and acquiescing to client wishes..
but the beauty of these forums is that we can give our true opinion.Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:36:42 pm from IP # -
I also did not 100% condemn swimming pools ... did you see the word 'chlorinate"
there are other options in swimming pools.Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:38:24 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
Member"Wow, now you're saying that if you can't have a pool we need to live in caves and not shower??"
Now you're getting it Karl......it commonly called compromise!
Posted Sunday 3 Oct 2010 @ 11:44:09 pm from IP # -
Lance
Key MasterHmm, just my 2 cents here, but wanting a pool just because it's hot where you live is, while understandable in some ways, is simply selfish when there is very limited fresh water on the planet available for human use. After all, you chose to live there, no-one forced you.
Imagine if all 7 billion people on the planet wanted to build a McMansion and have a pool, along with the huge energy use, environmental damage etc that these things cause? The planet would be screwed in a very short time, there simply isn't the capacity to give everyone these sorts of luxuries.
Just because you can afford it doesn't mean that you should have it. We are all on this planet together, everyones' choices affect everyone else, doing the 'I want, I want, gimme, gimme' bit is an unrealistic way to behave.
Sooner or later, the human world is going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is more to this planet than just humans and our wants. There are millions of other species on this planet, and we are making them extinct at an ever increasing rate through our selfishness and greed. They all need space, they all need resources in some way, but we are taking more and more for ourselves and ignoring all other species. Sad, but true. What's sadder is that humans are the only species on the planet with the ability to not only recognise this, but to also change our behaviour to prevent it, yet most people refuse to do so...
Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 12:02:28 am from IP # -
franks
MemberThe problem I see, is the middle class welfare given for wealthy home owners installing Grid PV, home owners get a Solar RECS Multiplier 5 times deemed for 15 years, for the real RECS generated as a rebate on the cost of the Grid PV installation.
This is causing the RECS market flooded with phoney RECS pushing the price lower, this is stopping Large Scale Renewable Power Projects.
Large Scale projects have economy of scale and the catipal cost per RECS generated is a small fraction of the cost for the same domestic rooftop PV generated RECS.
There should be a push for Large Scale Renew Power, not more middle class welfare for wealthy home owners!Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 12:34:12 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberI think you're all just supporting what I've said. It's compromise, a sliding scale if you wish....palaces for everyone at one end......cave dwelling basic subsistence living at the other. Each has their "own" view of where along that line humanity should be perched and no view may be the absolute! It just might vary the same way human individuality varies and it is wrong that one thinks they have the right to impose their view of where we should rest on that line, onto others. It is perfectly reasonable however, for one to persuade others by logical reasoning and that is more the topic of this thread.
Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 12:40:56 am from IP # -
wow, at least I got you all talking.. now we just gotta listen to one another .
Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 1:00:29 am from IP # -
Afred:
"because, in my opinion it is being subsidized and for that there is no real benefit."
A heck of a lot of things get subsidized, but that doesn't mean they don't have any benefit. You stated that it's your opinion though, and I appreciate that."Does not reduce any amount of carbon emitted by the generators"
It does if you don't claim the RECs, although admittedly that's a rarity. (I kept my RECs from the SHW, but not the PV). Installing solar generally makes energy usage 'personal', and so peolpe take a more active interest in their usage habits, which I would hope results in reduced carbon emitted by generators. You don't typically get that same level of personal involvement (from the broader community) with centralised power generation methods."You take on the responsibility of maintaining a utility, after your guarantees run out, you will have to pay and pay for service calls etc."
How many service calls are you expecting there to be on equipment that has no moving parts? I regularly deal with computer equipment that's been running 24x7x365 for 10-15 years without a hitch. One of the biggest problem areas are things with moving parts such as fans and disk drives."It is government funds wasted, which could instead be used for real alternate energy utility installations that benefits everybody."
I agree, but I don't see why it needs to be an either/or scenario."Sure, you feel good about yourself having installed PV, but does jack s*** in the greater scheme of things (grid)"
I agree I feel good, but I disagree that installing PV doesn't do anything in the greater scheme of things. I'd also agree though that it's not the only solution, but needs to be part of a blended mix of energy reduction, micro generation (PV, Wind, CHP, etc) and centralised generation.Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 1:28:35 am from IP # -
termite
Member"...at the end of last year solar panels generated 184 megawatts of power nationwide - fulfilling only about 0.2 per cent of the nation's total energy needs."
Well, that's 184 megawatts (MW), possibly two-thirds that in the long term after the embodied energy of photovoltaic (PV) panel production is deducted.
Eraring Power Station has a 2640MW capacity.
In Spain, Olmedilla (conventional PV) Photovoltaic Park generates 60MW at peak. Cost approx. US$530million. Andasol thermal solar generates 50MW baseload. Cost approx. US$380million. (According to Wikipedia and Mr Google)Somebody want to crunch the numbers? How much should we be leaning on our power suppliers to build large-scale renewable energy generators?
Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 1:55:16 am from IP # -
franks
MemberAs you mentioned in OZ there is 184 megawatts Grid tie PV installed
assume average sun hours of 4 hours in OZ (a conservative figure)
thats a annual production of 184*4*365 269,000 RECS generated (no assumption of conversion PV/to Grid)
Assume a REC = $30 with solar credits 5 times RECS generated deemed over 15 years thats a rebate of aprox $122 Million to PV home owners.
my figures on a back of napkin to illistrate the potential costs to the OZ public for home Grid PV.
I say put the money into well engineered large Renew projects, not on wealthy home owners roofs!Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 2:24:10 am from IP # -
dymonite69
MemberWhy let a home owner put a poorly installed system sitting half under shade in a low insolation district when the same thing could be used at maximum advantage in a well managed solar farm to produce energy?
A waste of resources. But then again people think 'solar' is free and infinite. Just that the equipment isn't.
Posted Monday 4 Oct 2010 @ 3:49:21 am from IP #
