145 comments on DrumBeat: April 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
145 comments on DrumBeat: April 6, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
If these forecasts are valid, shouldn't be bet on the come now and stop all additional coal power plants or augmentations to existing power plants?
With respect to cost, I am a bit skeptical since it is not sufficient to bring down the costs of the solar panels. One must also bring down the costs of the inverters and other accessory equipment. From what I have seen at Solarbuzz, little or no progress has been made on these items. Of course, with very large solar generating facilities, perhaps these costs will be a small part of the overall cost. My main concern is with small installations put on residences.
From a personal persepective, I already pay extra in order to enable my utility to acquire more wind power as part of their mix. Would not most of us pay extra, even double, to support the phaseout of coal plants?
The TXU deal will, hopefully, be part of a trend, a relative greening of the utilities. The new owners, however, will still be building 3 additional plants. Any fossil fuel plants should just be part of the minimum necessary baseload to support wind, solar, and other renewables.
We need leaders with the courage and fortitude to move forward, leaders who will tell us that we need to move away from fossil energy even if there is a certain amount of blood, sweat, and tears. We need to move forward ahead of the economics.
The price of inverters has most certainly come down over the past 10 years. I did a few Google searches, and was unable to find a price history on inverters. However, I can tell you that from personal experience of purchasing inverters, that the price has certainly come down significantly in the past 10 years. You don't even see square-wave inverters any more (Thank goodness), modified sine wave inverters are dirt cheap (I've purchased 1.5KW sustained 3WK peak inverter for $100 USD) and pure sine wave inverters (which is what you would have to use in a grid tied environment) would have been absurdly expensive 10 years ago.
Most of that was due to the use of MOSFETs in inverter technology, which are substantially cheaper than prior tech used. I'm not an EE, however. (I just have nerds for friends and such tendancies myself.)
Even so, you're correct in stating that the inverters are a real barrier for solar penetration in the market. Inverters usually range around 1/3 of the cost of a solar installation. Hopefully further improvements will be made in this area.
Coal, along with nuclear, is a base-load power supplier. Very little of it is cycled on a daily basis to meet demand. Solar is a peaking power supplier, for it operates best noonish (or later or earlier depending upon the orientation).
To reduce coal usage, base load must come down considerably. Solar first and best replaces natural gas and to some extent the limited remaining oil-fired generators. To eat into coal, we will need more/better electrical storage capability, and even if that is available, the progression will be to replace oil, nat gas first before eating into coal.
We'll get there...it is just a question of how much pain is involved before we do.
Well one step is to redefine baseload, the present status quo utility definition is unacceptable. There's a lot to be gained from redoing our lifestyles based on when the most energy is available etc.
Moving away from fossil fuels isn't just a technological challenge, but also just as much or even more so a cultural one. But the way baseload is thrown around as some a priori fact, is not going to get us far.
"Well one step is to redefine baseload"
Good luck with that.
They have been talking about having computers in homes for years now, if you can have a digital programmable thermostat and irrigation controller why can't you have an electric meter that not only charges more for peak times but displays that somewhere (like on the digital thermostat)-the usage, cost, how much you could save if you turned the dryer off until later...
At this point it has to be right up in people's face to get them to conserve anything (most people, anyway)
re "Good Luck with that"
That's kind of the point of the whole site, isn't it?
I agree wholeheartedly with Brutus' point. We might pout and fuss that 'baseload electricity' is our non-negotiable demand to maintain this lifestyle, but any number of factors might jump in and interrupt the flow.. Uranium, Nat Gas, Coal or Oil supply 'complications', Grid failures, Weather events, Computer Glitches, etc etc.. It seems absolutely crucial that we start to find ways to handle electricity interruptions, and to be able to continue business and other parts of life, even if a grid failure occurs.
Clearly nuclear has some support to continue and try to hold the grid up.. but I don't trust the High-Finance Power Industry, the Poisonous Supply and Waste, and the Complex chain that the system depends on for massive, central power supplies, when gangable diverse technologies are available and structurally safer and more democratic.
Well goinggreen, good luck to us all, but if you really want to change the electricity system, you should challenge utility thinking once in awhile.
I was looking into that a while back & it's definitely all that 'other stuff' that gets to be a problem as the cost of the panels come down. In an off grid system (i.e., with batteries), PV modules make up 50-60% of the total installed cost (solarbuzz numbers); installation is around 20% and the inverter is roughly 7%. The batteries & charge controller are 25%. If you deduct out the battery & charge controller cost for a grid tie system then PV modules make up 67-80% of the total cost. So cutting the cost of the PV modules dramatically (say from $5/peak watt to $1/pw) would make a nice impact on the overall cost. At that point, the installation cost gets to be the next biggest chunk.