Before C-19 I was in Germany - wall to wall solar panels. Electricity
residential rate 6/2020 $0.387 per KWH and going up. Back a bit, they
had 3 days, no wind and clouds. Fortunately the French nukes helped as
did other's they bought from.
With more load percent of wind/solar renewables, the stability of the
net decreases, and every KWH not produced as above needs hydro, carbon
or nuke backup. So it's a losing game that gets worse the more the
renewables provide. See the engineering studies of this phenomena in
Germany.
OTOH, I had 15KW of solar (all Sunpower USA) that I installed in CA. A
terrific deal considering the CA and Fed rebates. Plus, it knocked the
penalty peak rate ($.35/KWH) off my bill and ran another meter backward
net for the year. (PG&E paid me $0.03/KWH for selling them power - ha
ha!!). ROI was above 25%. So politics can make it a financially good
deal as well as some nice "I'm green" points.
Assuming the infrastructure will somehow get built has no basis in
reality considering NIMBY, eco-warriers, and general government
incompetence. Pretty much proven the last 20 years. Which President
promised "shovel ready"?
To pile on with one more gotcha. Two EV cars, with batteries @ 250KWH
to recharge every night in your home? Do the math per house and per
neighborhood. Get a price to upgrade your entrance service.
Grant KZ1W
On 4/20/2021 13:12, David Eckhardt wrote:
Ed, your points are well taken. However, consider the required
infrastructure expansion in the power grid that full implementation of the
EV is highly likely to precipitate. The EV movement is a loser with the
present power grid and generating capability. Take California as an
example. This is likely a worst case for the nation, but very real. Every
summer with all the air conditioners, areas of that state issue rolling
blackouts and brownouts. Five decades ago with the rolling brownouts in S.
Cal., I had to replace our frig. due to a burned out compressor. This is a
common failure with low voltage - they draw too much current. At the time,
I measured 104 vrms. And this was five decades in the past! If every new
house were equipped with solar to the extent that they became totally
independent of the power grid, would that make up the difference? I think
not as the load of an air conditioner on a 100+ degree day in S. Cal. can
not be supplied by a typical solar power installation while still providing
enough overhead for the remainder of the house.
Take the same situation in California and address PFC, Power Factor
Correction. This is analogous to SWR on our feedlines and transceivers.
If the SWR is high and no measures are taken to correct it before it's
presented to our transceivers, damage to the finals is a very likely
outcome. Same goes for the power generation industry. SWR on the power
grid, lack of PFC, causes just that phenomenon. The generators produce
more heat in dealing with the reflected power and must generate more power
to compensate for the reflected power - lack of PFC on large
installations. At present there are no laws on the books to correct this
situation. If there were, the likelihood of rolling brownouts and
blackouts every hot summer might be noticeably reduced. While this does
not directly address RFI and the RF FOG, it certainly plays directly into
the overall picture of power generation which is the issue.
So, where is the womb-to-tomb analysis of the various power alternatives?
Politicians wouldn't understand the fine points if they bit them in the
face. I have a study conducted at Los Alamos by some extremely qualified
scientists - not politicians. It specifically addresses 10 energy
alternatives *from womb-to-tomb*. The entire *womb-to-tomb* analysis has
never been presented to the .....well.......I'll be polite, here.....
Washington DC occupants. I am unfortunately not able to share the entire
study. However, the conclusion of the study is that EVs and solar power
are losers when the entire life cycle from digging stuff out of the ground
(recovery of the natural resources) to accomplishing its purpose (use
cycle) to final disposal of the parts (EOL) is taken into proper account.
Light pollution: Can no longer see stars in the cities. Everyone cares.
RFI and RF Fog: Can not be 'seen" so out-of-site and
out-of-mind (except for a few, amateurs included).
Dave - WØLEV
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:11 PM Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
We can speculate, but the solar system on a given house is probably no
more than 1% of the total mass and electronics present in that house over
the decades the solar system will be in place, and its components are far
more likely to be recycled than the seven TVs that people will own over the
lifetime of the system. You and I don't know where that balance is, so we
are just speculating that it might cost more energy to make than it
produces.
I don't think that to be the case. Let's conservatively estimate that a
home solar system generates 3 kW for 8 hours a day. If that system has a
lifetime of 20 years, can we really think that it would take the energy of
running a 1.5 horsepower motor continuously, 24 hours a day, for 20 years
to create that solar system from obtaining raw materials until disposal?
That alone seems to be way more energy than I can imagine it taking.
Then, if we don't do things with solar, what are the energy costs of
creating and replacing the huge electric generators that will be needed to
power all those unsolared homes? What of the additional costs of upgrading
transmission lines to bring power in from outside rather than pushing it
around on neighborhood distribution lines. Then factor in the fact that
most of the energy created by those generators is derived from
carbon-producing fuels and in my mind, I think that actual math has to come
out on the side of solar power being quite energy positive. If it took more
energy to produce the panels than they produced, none of the solar farms
would be economically viable, yet they are springing up all the time.
Now, as global citizens, we can be interested in these questions, but as
amateurs, and especially wiht ARRL, we have to be very careful not to step
past the bounds of our standing, because if we are to raise this point
based on speculation, we will lose the big EMC battle, and be sidetracked
by people who HAVE done the math.
Solar will happen, and right now, working with the manufacturers to
sensitize them to the importance of avoiding interference is the right
step. I must got ready with a a mobile van with a loop antenna located on
a trailer behind it, 99% noise free except for what I believe to be a bit
of tire static, ready to go visit local solar farms to really assess their
interference potential. I can calibrate that antenna against my calibrated
loop and get a really good estimate of antenna factor, so, using a spectrum
analyzer with RMS detection capability, I can get some good measurements to
compare solar-farm noise to existing noise levels.
Well, this will keep me busy for a few more years, so no need to retire
yet. all the rumors notwithstanding!
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
Ed, W1RFI
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of
Leonard Halvorsen via RFI <rfi@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:43 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] [External] Re: Wireless Power Transfer with electric
vehicles
One issue I have never seen addressed is the consideration of how much
energy is used to BUILD the components of the systems (solar arrays,
wireless chargers, etc.), and the associated pollution (read that: global
warming) resulting from that construction/production. Resources/Minerals
must be mined; then processed; then used in the production of the devices
in question. All of this takes energy. Probably more energy (including
fossil fuel energy) than would have been used if we spent that energy
(joules) directly on the work (watts, ft-lbs, calories, BTUs, etc.) to be
done (driving a car, heating/cooling your home, et-al). You are
saving/buying nothing if that EXTRA energy you use OVER the direct use of
the original expenditure EXCEEDS what you save at the end with the new
devices/systems/etc. Remember: Some of that extra expended (wasted) energy
is coming down your antenna feedline as noise.
73
Leo
WA2AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 6:48 PM
To: rfi <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Wireless Power Transfer with electric vehicles
The people who buy electric cars to Save The World are blissfully
ignorant
of all the pollution associated with making and recycling batteries.
They
will also be blissfully ignorant of the fact that wireless charging
energy
transfer is about 50% efficient compared to a direct cable connection.
Some won't care--they only want to virtue signal with their cars and have
plenty of money to waste. But maybe enough will avoid this idiocy IF
they
find out how expensive it will be.
73
Rob
K5UJ
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|