Debate Summary - SPS vs. Wind/Solar/Hydrogen

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> TangoMan-

> 2. The alternative use of Hydrogen burning gas turbines instead of
fuel
> cells if Platinum availability is an issue down the road, which
makes
> your platinum comments non-show-stoppers.

Hmmm! Mental contortions again. Now burning hydrogen in a gas
turbine is using hydrogen as a combustible fuel. So, we're going to
take natural gas, but we're not going to burn it, rather we're going
to extract the hydrogen and burn that. This sure ain't a renewable
strategy!

> 4. In your numbers analysis of a grid independent home you have
ignored
> several key issues which invalidate your conclusions:
> A. Efficiency loss from an inverter or fuel cell will produce
heat
> equivalent to the losses. So even if the power doesn't get to the
> baseboard heaters, it will still be released into the house
(assuming
> the inverters and fuel cells are inside the house). Thus your
> calculation for needed panels if all other factors were correct,
given
> the issue of a power loss which is assumed to simply disappear
from the
> system, is at the start about 40% or so too large.

You'll have noted that I mentioned sweltering or frostbite. That
heat-byproduct isn't going to do your air-conditioner in the middle
of the heatwave much good.

Also, there are more efficient ways to generate heat than radiation
from inefficient processes.

You're still behind the game.

> B. You look at a worst case with the lowest solar radiation of
the
> year, but you ignore that during the rest of the year the system
would
> have about twice as much production from more sun and would also
not
> need to heat the house. Thus, it would produce about four or more
times
> the baseline electric load, leaving three times that otherwise
unused.
> This could be stored for winter using some means of energy storage
> (ranging from carbon sequestration to make conventional fuel oil
to a
> big tank of hydrogen to simply heating rocks very hot). If you
factor in
> something like this, then the PV capacity needed in winter would
> actually be much reduced.

Oh give it up! Now, in addition to a Solar PV array, a wind turbine,
a fuel cell system, a high pressure oxygen and hydrogen storage
system to buffer for a few days of slack, the poor (and after all
this equipment that is exactly what they will be) homeowner has to
now install a hydrogen and oxygen storage system for a whole year's
worth of storage. This is the "be kind to the environment" approach?

> C. You ignore that the baseline electric load is equivalent to
about
> 1/2 of the total of electric load plus extra heating load. Since
> electric consumption produces heat, in fact about 1/2 of the total
heat
> needed in your scenario is already provided by electric
consumption. So,
> is is much of a stretch of the imagination that with 1/2 of the
heat
> supplied for free, as it were, it would be cost effective to
simply
> upgrade the homes insulation and windows and an air-to-air heat
> exchanger (total cost around $10-20K or so retrofit, and only a
few $K
> added for new construction) so that 1/2 of average heating would
be
> enough to heat the entire house?

Rather than counting on this type of convoluted logic I actually
point you to "real world" numbers. The fact that they actually use
real data means that those homes are already factoring in the
radiative heat from appliance use.

Amory Lovins points out that a
> superinsulated home can be totally heated with such incidental
heating
> -- including the body heat from the human occupants and perhaps
two
> forty watt poodles. :-)

Great. I'm sure all those people dealing with toxic mold, and sick
house syndrome will be even more eager to go that route just to
satisfy some environmentalist fantasy devoid of real life
concerns. "Energy self-reliance even if it kills us!" Great Motto!

> E. You ignore that there is no need to convert solar energy to
> electricity if it is to be used for heating. Solar energy can be
> absorbed directly by a working media in pipes and used for space
heating
> or water heating fairly straightforwardly and with much less area
(given
> very high efficiency of simply collecting and moving the heat) --
again
> reducing the energy needs for the PV system.

Unless you're using complex, *electrically powered* heat exchange
mechanisms, the highest temperature your water can reach is the
temperature of the sun on your collector. That temperature cannot be
sustained for a long period once the water circulates away from the
collector.

Yes, you can save some electric use by this process, but you cannot
eliminate it entirely. The amount of calories needed to heat your
water from ambiant *tap water* temperature to about household
temperature is where your energy can be saved. From this gain you
must subtract the radiative loss from the tank during the time that
no new hot water is being introduced into the system.

The radiative loss from the tank will decrease the need to heat the
home, but this is not a very efficient means of heating the home.

All told, and look to the data on appliance use I provided, you're
not saving much energy in the winter by heating your water with
sunlight.

> F. You ignore that most stand alone "green" systems would not
put a
> 100% requirement to generate all power in the winter -- they would
> probably readily accept using some hydro or wind power from a
nearby
> power generation system, which might greatly reduce the sizing for
the
> system (perhaps by another 50% or more).

What are you going to do, walk to the hydro station in the middle of
winter and put the electricity in a bucket? Remember, in this
nirvana of your creation, spurred on by the likes of Lovins, there
is no grid!

And also, you ignore that a
> properly designed or retrofitted passive solar home would "fail
safe" in
> the winter, such as that even if power available was low, the
worst that
> would happen is that the house would be 50-55 degrees F instead of
70
> degrees F. This is much better than a grid failure or SPS failure
in a
> winter storm that would leave SPS supplied poorly insulated homes
> freezing in a Northern climate.

As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, and here again you're
invoking this rhetorical fallacy, the benefits of conservation and
home design do not accrue stictly to the environmentalist
solar/wind/hydrogen position. They are equally applicable to nuclear
power as well.

TangoMan