Solar Panels Again

Random thought @Propagate, ever thought of installing a power monitor to assess your consumption?

 

I'd love one @SatayKing but the meter is 200 meters away from the house, my understanding is the consumption monitors connect to your smart meter wirelessly, (so need to be close to the meter?).

Most of the big usage items are now on the Kogan smart sockets so I can individually track each one.

The pool pump is the main culprit, I checked the smart socket at the weekend when the pump was on, it was using a steady 1.2 kw per hour, definitely time to swap that out I think. That's by far the biggest usage item in our house by the looks of things.

 

You can definitely do RS485 over ethernet cable with most inverters.

 

Would that track usage from the incoming mains too, not just from what you're generating? I had in my head that would only track solar-side if you know what I mean?

 

Yes, that's the only thing it would measure. The generation data is done by the inverter. The inverter then subtracts the two, to calculate what your house consumes.

 

Our local shopping center car park - shaded parking area (solar)

 

Great idea!

 

Yes, it is a good idea.

Been happening in some parts of Europe for a few years and I understand India has also been constructing solar panels over open canals in order to not only generate energy but to reduce evaporation.

 

Is that Castle Plaza? It is about 3 kms from home.

Edit: Forget it, I just saw you are from WA.

 

BUMP - back to the side effects of producing solar panels -

This statement doesnt match up with what we are told.
For many years now, we have been told that Coal mining (which is also needed to produce the steel needed for solar panels and wind turbines) is a major source of Carbon Dioxide emissions which are deemed as dangerous greenhouse gases.
But there has never been any mention of methane over that time.
Indeed; our various Governments across the Western World are constantly trying to implement penalties and reduction of CO2 emissions Porgrams - not methane.

 

You might have been missing a subscript "e", which is often in place, making it CO2e. "e" stands for equivalent and includes all things such as methane, sulfur hexaflouride, etc.

 

These are some good ideas:
road made of solar panels and recycled plastic - Google Search:

 

Whilst I agree that various gases in the atmosphere can be toxic to humans (and animals) if they are in close proximity and are exposed for long periods, the rhetoric about all of this has never centred on anything else other than Carbon Dioxide.
I tried to try and find evidence of the subscript in written articles.
In almost every case where Carbon Emissions is mentioned as far back as 2000, the subscript is not mentioned or printed. Here are a few examples:
Carbon pricing in Australia - Wikipedia
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jul...ome..69i57.29586j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=co2.....69i57j0l7.6767j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It does get mentioned of course - see below - but not in emissions schemes Projects rhetoric.
The first I had heard of it - in terms of news and media reports was just now. None of the various news platforms I have followed over the past few decades has included a subscript at any time in their push to introduce CO2 emissions reduction Programs.
In terms of producing solar panels and wind turbines - which need the coal - it makes it very tough to justify a reduction in coal (and thus CO2 and CH4).

 

They why you have to self-educate ... don't simply "believe" what you are told

 

Pure and simple: You're utterly and completely wrong!
I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, as if you base it on clearly incorrect assertions, then anything following that "logic" will be wrong as well.

 

A lot of people are believing what they are told on both sides of the topic.
I'm not saying the subscript "e" doesnt exist - it does - I read it in a "The Guardian" article about an hour ago.
All I'm saying is that the entire premise of global warming and Climate Change; which has spiked the growth in renewables such as solar panels and wind turbines - in every Government and U.N etc Doc only talks about Carbon Pricing, Carbon Reductions.
There are the very occasional ones which now mention GHG's, but in terms of emissions - most if not all Docs refer only to Carbon.
Heres a Climate Action article featuring the U.N from this year;
UNITED NATIONS UN Climate Change Summit 2019

And here is a sentence from the "opening press release" from the same article;
"As carbon pollution, temperatures, and climate destruction continue to rise,"

And from the same Doc at the bottom is the "closing press release"
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_closing_release.pdf
If the impact of Methane is much worse than Carbon - as has been claimed - why do we not see any new Docs or news reports in the various media focusing on it? It seems rather odd, to me.

 

Well, by that logic, it does include methane. Methane (CH4) is 75% carbon by weight and CO2 is only 27%!

 

it may be 75% carbon, but carbon is not a pollutant.
I think I am about 18% carbon (and 88% hot air according to my wife ).
If we are talking weight and percentages - the breakdown of atmosphere and causes of climate change (hence the push for renewables - based on the argument that coal provides too much CO2), water vapour is actually a lot higher percentage at 66-85% of the greenhouse effect (0.4% of the Earth atmosphere), while CO2 is down at 9-26% (0.04% of the Earths atmosphere). CH4 is regarded as a "trace element" - yet we are told it is worse than CO2? it doesnt add up.
But, water vapour - at a much higher percentage - never rates a mention though.
We actually need more water vapour for rain and plant growth - and would arguably add to global warming based on the explanations we are given, yet noone is complaining about that.
Given these stats, it seems to me that trying to shut down coal mining - which is the current major push, but needed for solar panels and wind turbines - would be unnecessary.
If Countries such as China and India are to become serious about reducing their CO2 emissions (which they arent currently) and switch to renewables, they would need coal mining to continue, to allow much needed massive increases in their implementation of solar panels and wind turbines.
How would they achieve that balance?

 

I'd start by educating yourself on why excess carbon in the atmosphere is an issue, the realising of methane into the atmosphere and the percentages of man made carbon pollution versus natural carbon (which have different makeup in the carbon molecules) and then we can discuss.

Most of the above educating suggestions, I have already linked and repeated several times in PC