On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:41:54 +0100
The Natural Philosopher  wrote:

> On 30/07/18 12:40, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> >  Batteries can do both at utility scale or at domestic scale make
> > the reliability of the grid far less important.
>
> Utter total BOLLOCKS.

 At utility scale they make the grid more reliable because they
switch in and out far faster and more efficiently than any generator can.
Proven repeatedly in Australia.

 At domestic scale they make the householder immune to brown out and
outages short enough not to drain them, proven repeatedly by everyone who
has domestic power storage (there are a lot these days since Tesla started
selling powerwalls even though those things are a *lot* more expensive than
deep cycle lead/acid to put in).

 Now tell my why those two true and proven statements are "Utter
total Bollocks" - or is it that you are reduced to foul language instead of
reason.

> >> The cost of a domestic solar panel and enough battery storage for
> >> winter well exceeds the cost of a nuclear power station and a national
> >> grid.
> >
> >  Why on earth would you want enough power storage for winter ?
> > That would take four or five megawatt hours of storage.
>
> Exactly. Because dear boy the sun dont shine in winter much, if at all.

 Sigh - go look up some figures - the energy production of a solar
system in December and January is about 20% of that for the same system in
June and July - at UK latitudes. So for off-grid winter usage you need a
system that produces enough energy for your needs at 20% of rated capacity,
and enough power storage to handle long dull stretches. The usual estimate
for off-grid usage is at least five days storage.

 Of course wind generators tend to work better in autumn and spring
and about the same in summer and winter.

 But I wasn't suggesting fully off-grid I was suggesting local
storage and generation that reduces grid power usage and provides reliable
power when the grid does not. For that every little helps.

> >  A few hours storage (say ten to twenty kilowatt hours) and a few
> > kilowatts peak of panel (just enough that the total collected annually
> > is close to the total used annually) is enough to make a huge
> > difference, especially if excess power can be sold (or even given free)
> > to the grid when the batteries are full.

 Every kilowatt hour that goes into batteries from solar panels is a
unit that doesn't have to come from the grid with a system as described
above every day that produces enough energy to last overnight means nothing
drawn from the grid. Power is only drawn from the grid when the batteries
are too drained. If the average supply from panels over the year matches
the drain for the year then in summer the system will be dumping energy or
pushing it into the grid, in winter it will be getting about half the
energy from solar and the rest from the grid.

> More bollocks

 Back that up or shut up. I can back up all my statements with facts.

> >  Even without solar panels a few hours of on-site power storage
> > is more than enough to cope with brownouts and the vast majority of
> > outages. It's just that once you have the storage feeding it with
> > locally generated solar or wind power makes obvious sense.
> >
> >  Had such a setup been feasible in 1973 it would have made the
> > regular three hour power cuts completely unnoticeable and reduced the
> > impact of the oil crisis to being a minor nuisance.

 Three hours of battery storage in the home would have meant no
power outages felt. If those batteries could have been charged with solar
then that coverage would have come at no load to the grid, and therefore no
use of fuel.

> Complete shite.

 Again back up your potty mouthed denials with some facts or STFU.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05