Getting a return on NBN battery backup = Marconomic solar PV plan

This article has a bit on the bottom regarding the battery backup unit, which many commenters have also mentioned. The problem is that although it is great to have broadband as well as voice calls available during blackouts, because blackouts are rare, and many homes were already in a situation where their phone was dependent on grid power, return on the investment in money and space to have the battery there can be dubious.

Once you have a battery permanently in your house, a return can be garnered by making the battery useful regardless of blackouts. A very small cheap solar panel can keep the battery charged up independently of the grid. Enough power is generated and stored to use the battery as a device charger (ipods, nintendos, mobiles etc.) that will cut your power bill considerably with no inconvenience to the utility. In my house charging devices uses a lot of electricity - not because of the amount of power required to charge the device, but because the chargers leak power all day, and the power points are hard to reach to turn them off and on each time they are needed, and the power conversion ac to dc is very inefficient. The battery/solar PV will double as an emergency charging point for devices during blackouts as well.

Grid based access vs grid independent systems

I started thinking about this entry ages ago when I had an epiphany and I felt that it could be proven that a speed/price/throughput advantage would exist for "fibre" over "wireless". (Conversely, a flexibility and ability to function when the grid is "down", advantage would always exist the other way).

The basis of the proof is basically that any imaginable technology that improves speed over wireless electromagnetic radiation, would be applicable to wired electromagnetic radiation in the same proportion of improvement.

In the case of broadband, at one extreme is Fibre to the Home and the other extreme is Satellite broadband. Wi-Fi is closer to the FTTH side, then there is 3G style wireless broadband that relies on the mobile network which is connected via mainly fibre, and satellite, which can work even if the whole countries internet is down, theoretically. This doesn't really prove that FTTH is worth pursuing, because it is a tenable argument (although I would dispute it) that wireless will improve to the point that it is fast and cheap enough for everything we find important.

Back in Uni, it was proposed that solid state storage improvements were happening faster than hard drive improvements and could overtake them, and although a USB stick is enough for most things, portable hard drives still hold more and are used a lot, the storage advantage of hard drives is constant, due to the solid state improvements being equally applicable to hard drive storage.

Similar grid vs grid independent comparisons are common - road vs helicopter, grid power vs home generators, rail vs aeroplane, piped gas vs cylinders, water tanks vs dam & pipes, private dam storages vs large scale dams for irrigation.

With this in mind, simple goal based arithmetic could decide the balance between grid based and grid independent systems.

For Photo Voltaic electricity generation, I think we have got it backwards, which is why grid parity is not served well with thousands (or millions) of individual installations. If a household is after energy independence, a PV system with a significant amount of battery storage (batteries suitable for an electric car?) is actually very useful and would be a boon for extended power outages (like after Yasi). Because home PV installations are optimised to feed power back into the grid, they are quite useless as independent power sources, compared to diesel generators.

However, if we want PV power to compete with Coal or Gas, we need economies of scale of large scale PV based power stations.

What we need is more "lakes" in the not so wild west

There is quite an eerie duality between the lakes of the "wild" west-flowing rivers (in general they flow to wards Lake Eyre) and the "tamed" west flowing rivers. A series of lakes in the "wild rivers" (eg Lake Yamma Yamma, Diamantina lakes, Coongie lakes, etc.) Considerably slows the flow to the treeless salty pit in the end point (Lake Eyre). On the way, these storages are the lifeblood of both wilderness in these catchments(waterholes, trees, wildlife), and for human resources in those same catchments (mainly sheep/cattle grazing).

If you compare this with the Murray/Darling basin, all the human endeavour that has toiled to tame it has merely expanded on this natural system of floods being trapped. Both for the environment and human uses, it is an amazing extension, as the facts remain that floods and drought are as damaging to the natural environment's inhabitants as they are to human habitation. The remaining floods and droughts in the system are still primarily in the gaps where there is no suitable "lake" to absorb floods and make the water available through some of the following drought. I am estimating that by the end of this La Nina year, as much as all the water capacity of all of the Murray Darling water storages will have flowed out through the barrages of Lake Alexandrina. It is an open question as to whether the floods have nicely "reversed" the whole of the environmental damage done through the 10 or so years of it being a closed system (in drought, as it were). Although climate scientists have deemed the last 10 or 20 years as the new normal - I would suggest that it is a very brave call to BET that there will be similar droughts within our lifetime, as opposed to the usual contrived predictions.

If we could have harnessed even half of that water flowing away to the sea, the floods would have been even more controlled. At least we should have generated some osmotic energy from it at Lake Alexandrina, instead of just talking desalination. In the next few years of relatively plentiful water (even if we have a drought immediately after this La Nina) It makes no economic sense to buy (at a high price) water allocations from farmers who would use it to make a profit, for the environment which doesn't need it at that moment because of the soil storage from this recent series of flood events. Just feel grateful that we have got so much flexibility due to large natural and artificial storages, and perhaps plan some more future bountiful lakes that can be huge long term environmental assets for a relatively small environmental and human adjustment upfront price in drowned valleys.

Pricing Signals

There are really not enough of these in the world. Consider these situations:

1) Person who is on a phone plan does not have a direct cost feedback even if the bill goes up to alarming 6 figure sums.

2) A farmer gets their bill for water, but doesn't know how much their neighbours could have gained by buying it, nor if he could have gained more money selling it than keeping it.

3) Consumers cannot gauge how much petrol is costing them for the car air-conditioner or to get to the petrol station with the cheaper petrol.

4) Polluting coal burning power stations don't know how much local residents would be willing to pay to shut it down or modernise it. Nor how long they would be willing to put up with blackouts to achieve that.

5) Consumers considering whether to hang up their worn clothes or put them in the wash + dryer + ironing. What is the cost/benefit analysis.

At what resolution do pricing signals benefit cost/benefit analysis the most. Would a computer that could make calculations about every single activity throughout your day and have an indicator go off regarding your most inefficient activity be useful?

Would it tell me that (buying and) drinking a can of orange softdrink is the most inefficient because a) it costs a fair amount per calorie
b) They are empty calories that could actually reduce your life expectancy.
c) Sugars will stick to and damage your teeth leading to much higher dental bills.
d) contains preservative 211 which is dodgy at the best of times.
e) contains no caffeine so is ineffective at improving concentration.
f) actually dehydrates you to some extent.
g) is energy intensive to create, can, store and refrigerate, compared to alternatives such as coffee or water.

Suffice to say that any improved pricing signals about anything we care about is a net benefit to resource allocation. Whether it is the environmental cost of the ghg's associated with activity or the amount of money an STD call costs, if there is an efficient market to generate a price which reflects all known information and demand, resources WILL be allocated better. Thus money spent on strategic pre-fire season burn-offs in the outback of Australia may be way, way more efficient than investing the same amount in solar panels or planting trees. Being that people will spend the money anyway, pricing signals cut the wastage for everyone's benefit.

The main danger is not that we will be less efficient ignoring/underutilising cheap fossil fuels, but that we will completely ignore cost/benefit analysis and spend the money in a way which makes us feel good, or which buys our vote without even being in line with the goal central to what the money is being spent on. Thus European countries may use the money on pointless subsidies, Americans may give tax breaks on hand-picked industries. Thus, without even giving themselves a chance at meeting self-imposed targets, they are busy regulating in a way which will reduce their growth prospects.

In defence of the Apex Predator

A recent theme in ecological research has been the discovery that not all species are as important as eachother in a regional ecosystem. In fact, if one has to choose a species to protect, it is always the apex predator (top of the food chain) that should be chosen. For instance the extermination in the 1920's of the Wolf from Yellowstone National Park had been found to cause damage to the whole ecology without a single other animal or plant being damaged by human hands. This has been found to be true for all regional ecosystems. Thus the Crocodile really is due protection in the rivers, The Lion really is the king of the beasts in parts of Africa, Cougars, Bears etc. are very important in their ecological niches as well. In Yellowstone for instance, the elk (Reindeer?) are perceived by humans to be important because they are big and beautiful, but the Wolf is more important even though it is unpopular both with tourist and ranchers, and often kill weaker, though intelligent animals in very cruel ways.

Also in the Ocean this is found to be true. And the vicious killers of the deep blue are denegrated by a large swathe of the population. This is wrong, because even if they are natural born killers and kill intelligent and feeling popular mammals of the deep, they are more important than the species they are killing for food. Thus I believe the apex predator in this case - the Japanese whaling and fishing fleets - should be regulated to more mimic the activities of more conventional apex predators such as Great Whites and killer whales, and not be vilified for choosing to kill whales in certain circumstances. Whales are like giant Elk of the deep, and uncontrolled populations may devastate populations of lower species - especially if shark hunting continues uncontrolled!