Storing solar power increases energy consumption and emissions, study finds

[SWFLA]

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-solar-power-energy-consumption-emissions.html

[adoublee]

They say a home with storage uses more energy than one without. Sounds like they are only considering the site energy and not source energy. I'll bet that fact flips if power plant enfficiency of fuel energy conversion is accounted for. This is like saying an element electric heater is 100% efficient at the site so it must be better than a 95% efficiency NG furnace.

[Anthony A Bobo]

I would like to know whether solar panel installation has any negative impacts???

[J.P.M.]

I bet on site residential storage may give the perception of overall lower POCO supplied energy bills.. Things seem cheaper = more usage of that thing. Anecdotal energy use for neighbors w/PV that I monitor shows usage going up. Seems like lower bills = more usage.

[Anthony A Bobo]

So what do you think whether the installation of solar panels useful of not??

[jflorey2]

https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-sola...emissions.html

Interesting article. A good argument for grid scale storage over home storage.

[J.P.M.]

So what do you think whether the installation of solar panels useful of not??

If that question is directed at me, and since you ask, the answer is, like most every answer, it depends on who you ask and what their goals are. Opinion's are like noses, everyone has their own, most of them smell, and some are downright ugly. There's a lot of variation in both noses and opinions. I've got my opinions, but other's bills/goals/$$/life are absolutely NOMB or concern.

Not everyone's usage that I monitor is going up. Just most, and of those that do seem to be increasing, the bills are not anywhere near where they were. Seems to me most folks have a very poor perception of energy, how it's used, how it's billed, and how to reduce it's use. They got solar because they were running away from self induced high energy bills, are clueless how they're using electricity, and throwing money at the problem rather than moving toward sane(r) energy use reduction. With apologies to ethical solar professionals who may not be con artists, people's solar ignorance is the best tool the solar con artists have.

BTW, when I say usage went up, that's total usage, not just what's bought from the POwer COmpany (POCO), but the sum of purchased power and PV generated power. I get the feeling that folks get PV, see a much lower bill and say "screw it, jack(/reduce) the thermostat, energy's now free, or at least a lot less costly", and usage goes up because the pain of the large electric bill, that was once like a hemorrhoid, is now about as irritating as a mosquito bite, and the impetus to conserve and salve the pain of a larger bill by any means is gone.

Is PV Useful ? - perhaps. But I don't think residential PV will ever do as much to reduce residential demand on the grid as once thought. Rather, I suspect it may cause a noticeable drop in mid day demand on the grid for a while (how long ??), but my cynical nature suspects that demand will creep back up with usage increasing and bills approaching some level of discomfort, only perhaps a bit less than the pre PV bills. So, overall usage will go up, folks, at least those in the U.S. anyway, will continue their profligate energy use.

PV useful ? Maybe. Maybe not. Define useful.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[solar pete]

So what do you think whether the installation of solar panels useful of not??

It's very useful for those who pay high power bills (cost per kilowatt hour), live in places with good incentives, have good sun hours, own their home or business and have some spare cash or can get a good loan option

[SunEagle]

It's very useful for those who pay high power bills (cost per kilowatt hour), live in places with good incentives, have good sun hours, own their home or business and have some spare cash or can get a good loan option

I agree with you and JPM.

Solar is not for everybody. If it can save you money the I support it. If it is being installed to feel warm and fuzzy because you now think your carbon footprint is smaller then I feel it can be an issue and not worth the cost.

The simple solution for people that want to save money and lower their carbon footprint would be to turn off your electrical appliances when you don't need them and find ways to use less electricity. Conservation is a much better way to achieve both of those goals.

[Sunking]

No different than any other commodity like money. Those that have money, spend more of it. Those who do not, wished they had more to spend.

[J.P.M.]

The simple solution for people that want to save money and lower their carbon footprint would be to turn off your electrical appliances when you don't need them and find ways to use less electricity. Conservation is a much better way to achieve both of those goals.

IMO, those words ought to be on the masthead of this website right under the words" SolarPanelTalk".

[bcroe]

The results of solar panel installation will vary greatly with the situation, and the reasons for doing it are also
quite varied. For example some owners might want short or long term $ savings, to feel "green", to stop
carbon emissions, manage off grid, to go beyond and "win" the battle of conservation, to run a science
experiment of just what the limits of practicality might be, or just to show the energy suppliers what for.

Good planning is extremely important. But still the results will in many cases be a considerable learning
experience, for better or for worse. Bruce Roe

[DanKegel]

If no carbon is emitted to generate the electricity that charges the batteries, and that electricity wouldn't have fit onto the grid to displace fossil-based power, storage won't increase emissions.
That's kind of the situation in Maui (see the TOU rates at hawaiianelectric.com/save-energy-and-money/time-of-use-program !!).

[J.P.M.]

If no carbon is emitted to generate the electricity that charges the batteries, and that electricity wouldn't have fit onto the grid to displace fossil-based power, storage won't increase emissions.
That's kind of the situation in Maui (see the TOU rates at hawaiianelectric.com/save-energy-and-money/time-of-use-program !!).

That logic might get stretched to work in some situations, but as a practical matter, will go out the window when/if energy storage charging is allowed when the sun is not shining, rates are off peak and the tariff allows it. That might serve as an example of a tariff actually increasing off peak use to the perhaps benefit of the POCO and not necessarily to the benefit of the environment.

Using less electricity is still cheaper for the user and better for the environment.

[DanKegel]

if energy storage charging is allowed when the sun is not shining, rates are off peak and the tariff allows it

Absolutely. TOU is not a perfect match. It might still be a good tradeoff, depends on how often it's cloudy.

Dynamic realtime pricing would be better, but that's getting a little fancy, people are already nervous about TOU. Maybe someday.