Let's watch this test case

> --- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
>
>>P.S. I haven't looked at in detail, but I think the house example
>>with numbers you list may reduce available PV power twice
>
> If you haven't looked in detail at the link I provided, then what is
> the use of your critique that follows?

It's more a function of not having enough time to do justice to your
excellent posts. But the figures felt off. I haven't looked at some of
these numbers for over a decade. And again, I don't have time/energy to
do justice to all the issues here.

> Here is the link again: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html
>
> This just tells me that you're arguing from ignorance. You're
> throwing out all sorts of criticisms and hoping that something
> sticks. This is just like your tactic of saying the critics are
> using outdated information when you simply have no basis on which to
> make that claim.
>
> It also tells me that you don't want to see any evidence that
> threatens your world view.
>
> Really, I'm astounded that you can criticize without understanding
> in detail what you're opposing!
>
>>(perhaps using an already daily average solar energy amount and
>>then factoring in peak daylight hours again),
>
> No, I'm correcting the data you gave. You claim solar incidence on
> the ground to be 1,000 W/m^2. This is a theoretical ideal. The
> actual number is about 600 W/m^2 which is what a summer day at 40
> degree latitude would receive.

Note: this figure disagrees with one I just got from the US governments
solar energy lab, starting from this page:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/
putting in Flat Plate Tilted South at Latitude for December.
In the swath includign New York, Iowa, etc. (and by far less than 1/6 of
ther US land mass) the amount listed is 2-3 kWh/m2/day. The figures you
side in that calculation produce 1.8 kWh/m2/day. So the figure used in
that calculation is closer to half of the typical value when doing a
cost calculation based on what might be a typical installation with
tilted panels.

> You'll note that the AVERAGE incidence over the entire planet is 164
> W/m^2. If you also look at the land distribution of the Earth,
> you'll see a preponderance of landmass in the northern hemisphere,
> and much of that is in the higher latitudes than on the equator.

Note: That average is 24 hours a day.

> Only a fool would design a system for a home based on summer maximum
> solar illumination and then shiver and suffer through a winter with
> lower solar illumination, thus the appropriate response is to design
> your solar PV system to provide you with the electrical capacity
> you'll need based on the winter solar illumination of 300 W/m^2.

Typically a cost effective installation made right now (given that our
economical system is distorted by ignored externals costs, fossil fuel
subsidies etc.) produces most of its energy need and supplements some to
reduce the cost to perhaps less than half of a full system. However,
since we are talking future R&D and future energy policy, I think it
fair to say that 100% can be generated cost effectively with expected
new technology and expected changes to the tax code etc.

> If you disagree, then the burden is on you to explain why people
> should suffer in the winter or how they'll squeeze more efficiency
> from less sunlight.
>
>>also may assume a panel that is not sloped,
>
> A sloped panel gives you more solar cell surface area than a flat
> panel. If you have a 100 m^2 of floor area under your roof, you
> either cover a flat roof with 100 m^2 of PV or a sloped roof with
> more than 100 m^2 because of basic trigonometry.
>
> Considering the source of this information is the University of
> Oregon, that they acknowledge array orientation with respect to the
> Sun as being critical to collecting more energy, and that flat roofs
> aren't that popular, I assume that they've accounted for the
> increased PV cell area and the better solar incidence from a more
> favorable angle for the PV arrays.
>
>>and may also uses an overly inflated home energy use expectations
>
> No, they explicitly state that the TYPICAL energy usage is 3,000
> kW/H per month. This is appropriate methodology. What use is an
> energy stoic lifestyle for your scenario? It's completely
> misleading, which is one of my main criticisms of the
> environmentalist argumentative styles. If you argue that everyone
> can implement a solar/wind solution then you should use real
> numbers, not the energy stoic lifestyle numbers. Why not be honest
> and tell people that they should cut their energy use by 2/3, down
> to 1,000 kW/H per month to comply with your utopian vision.

If your neighbors house were to use 1/3 the energy thant your house does
through being better insulated and having efficient apliances, so they
had a tiny power bill while you had a big one, then is the issue who is
the "environmentalist" or who is the person wasting their own money?
That is possible even now, despite an insane market with ignored
external costs like pollution and security.

Typical US electrical home useage without efficient appliances is about
1000 kWh a month. Notice your example says "total energy use" not total
electricity use -- and so must have factored in power use for heating.
Note also that heating needs can be supplied with other technology
(solar hot water, other forms of heat collectors, etc.) which do not
involve using more expensive PV. So your cost calculations based on that
analysis are IMHO flawed. And also heating needs can be greatly reduced
by better insulation etc. In general, the US housing stock is
underinsulated. R80 is a much better standard. For one (older) example:
http://www.nahn.com/mtsiproj.htm
"Consumption Summary - The houses used less than 5,000 average kWh per
year for space heat, compared to more than 15,000 kWh per year for
houses built to current HUD standard. Total annual savings combining hot
water and space heating was $950. Occupants rated the homes as very
comfortable and were able to set thermostats at a comfortable range at
an affordable cost. ... Without this attention to reducing other costs
throughout the construction process, the marginal cost for the
conservation measures in similarly sized houses has been reported to be
about $3,000, depending on builder expertise and other factors.4/ If
the Montana Superinsulation Project houses had these marginal costs, the
payback on the measures would still be under four years."

The bottom line here is that the US housing stock is obsolete as regards
to energy useage. Given that housing stock turns over over the course of
decades (fires, demolitions, rennovations, etc.) I think it makes more
sense resource wise and economically to argue for future housing stock
upgrades to meet energy security standards than to argue for new untried
energy production systems like SPS.

Here is an example of city housing in a northern location:
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/popup/hhtoronto/works.htm

"What is truly amazing is that CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto provides
all the comforts of home - without using municipal services. It has been
designed to rely on sun and precipitation as the basis of its heating,
electrical, water and waste water management systems. And right from the
start, the way it is built and the materials used in construction mean
more comfort, less maintenance and lower operating costs. That goes for
the landscaping, too. CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto is located near
public transportation, and is designed to provide maximum usable space
on a minimum amount of land, to limit air and water pollution, and to
use locally available materials and durable renewable resources wherever
possible. It is an affordable solution to housing now that will keep on
working for many years to come."

Simply put, your are proposing a new untried capital intensive insecure
system with SPS to remedy the fact that the housing stock is obsolete.
Why not just fix the root problem like the above example? Then, there
will be enough money saved long term to continue R&D in PV+HYdrogen.

>
>>(which probably includes assuming electric radiant heat (not heat
>>pump)
>
> Oh, so now your position has morphed into a solar PV system, a back-
> up of a wind turbine for when the sun doesn't shine, a system
> designed for overcapacity to charge the fuel cell during the day so
> it can be called upon during the evening, a fuel cell with a
> capacity of (100kW/H / 24 H/day * 18 hours of energy draw from the
> fuel cell) of 4,166 kW/H and a hydrogen storage tank for 18 hours of
> fuel cell use, and now ripping out an electric radiant heating
> system and replacing it with a heat pump.
>
> Hmmm, doesn't look too attractive to me.
>
>> & no passive solar or good insulation).
>
> On what basis do you make the claim that this isn't accounted for?
> There is no mention in the link about this. They just quote
> *TYPICAL* usage.
>
> Surely you're not now advocating destroying homes and having them
> redesigned to be passively solar. Insulation is easier to install in
> an attic or crawlspace but much more difficult to increase in a wall
> cavity.
>
> Your proposal has to live with the existing housing stock just as
> competitive energy schemes do.
>
>>Also (guessing) probably 80% of the world's population lives
>>closer to the equator than that example.
>
> 80% huh? Maybe you're right, let's take a cursury look at this.
>
> How about the US first. These states have the majority of the land
> area at or above 40 degree latitude:
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/usanewd.htm
>
> http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?
> ds_nameC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id000US&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1-
> R&format=US-9S
>
> STATE - POPULATION
> Washington - 5,894,121
> Oregon - 3,421,399
> Idaho - 1,293,953
> Montana - 902,195
> Wyoming - 493,782
> North Dakota - 642,200
> South Dakota - 754,844
> Nebraska - 1,711,263
> Minnesota - 4,919,479
> Iowa - 2,926,324
> Wisconsin - 5,363,675
> Illinois - 12,419,293
> Michigan - 9,938,444
> Indiana - 6,080,485
> Ohio - 11,353,140
> Pennsylvania - 12,281,054
> New Jersey - 8,414,350
> New York - 18,976,457
> Connecticut - 3,405,565
> Rhode Island - 1,048,319
> Massachusetts - 6,349,097
> New Hampshire - 1,235,786
> Vermont - 608,927
> Maine - 1,274,923
> Alaska - 626,932
>
> Sub-total - 118,918,029
>
> US TOTAL - 281,421,906
>
> OK, so in the US 42.26% of the population lives at or above 40
> degrees latitude.
>
> Let's look at some other countries:
>
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/eu.htm
> Europe - 730,916,000
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/ru.htm
> Russia - 145,904,000
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/ca.htm
> Canada - 31,902,268
>
> It'll take too much time to figure out the population for Asia above
> the 40 degree latitude line, so I'll just forget it.
>
> http://www.worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.htm
> Total World Population - 6,135,000,000
>
> So it looks like you called it pretty close, because by my rough
> estimate only 16-20% live at or above the 40 degree latitude, but
> almost every country above the latitude is an industrialized nation,
> thus accounting for large per capita energy use, and equally
> important, they have the wealth to fund an extensive energy
> infrastructure.
>
> Even though your guess was correct, I don't think it has too much
> relevence to your criticism.

The relevance is that your example is at best the worst case, and 80% of
humanity are in a much better location for using PV.

>
>>And of course, again, as with point A above, the cost estimate
>>ignores the announced theoretical breakthrough proposed to lead to
>>PV production in a couple years with an installed cost down to
>>$0.20 / watt per twenty years,
>
> You've heard the old saying that there's many a slip betwixt the cup
> and lip. This is counting your chickens before they hatch. Your
> *experts* are saying your solar/wind/hydrogen scheme works now and
> that this is the route we should take, so it matters not what the
> future technology will yield.

SPS is also a future technology -- be careful here. :-)

> You also conveniently ignore the fact that if such a breakthough is
> developed that it can be installed on an SPS and thus increase the
> energy yields and lower the cost threshold just as well as it can
> for the terrestrial solar PV cell. The advantage isn't unique to
> terrestrial solar, so it balances out and becomes moot.
>
>>and so is again comparing Apples and Oranges (off-the-shelf PV
>>now vs. idealized SPS in twenty years).
>
> Once again, your analysis, and your conclusion, are wrong. You
> should actually look at the data even though it is upsetting to your
> world view. It'll save you the trouble of arguing a losing
> proposition.
>
> I'm surprised that you keep insisting I'm using some idealized
> vision of SPS in the future. The SPS will be either PV cell based,
> or solar thermal. The energy efficiency at converting solar
> illimunation to energy is the same for a terrestrial PV cell as it
> is for an orbital SPS PV cell. No magic there, just that in orbit,
> the illumination is stronger and lasts for 24 hours. Look to the
> reference to the earlier debate that I provided for more details on
> this issue.
>
> Here too we're comparing apples to apples in terms of the question
> of efficiency.
>
> TangoMan

Not enough time to adress all the issues here. You have some good
points, but we obviously still disagree on the big picture.

--Paul Fernhout