The Goal
I think many people agree, in an era of global warming, air pollution and international agreements like the Paris accord, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels. That at least seems like the obvious direction to head in. Alternatives like sequestering carbon, which may be very important in the future, don’t seem viable at the moment.
Although I believe agriculture has a very important role to play in carbon sequestration, I also believe it’s important to phase out fossil fuels, at least in the way they are used today. I think it may be possible to continue to use fossil fuels, in a very modest and efficient way, if they end up being the best solution under limited circumstances. The issue is more that today they are used in very inefficient ways.
Air Pollution
I’m very unhappy air pollution is being used as a red herring in the issue of global warming. If we phase out fossil fuels, cleaner air will certainly be a consequence. Unlike climate change, when the sources of air pollution are addressed, the effects are pretty immediate and air quality rapidly improves. Climate change however is something we will all have to live with during our lifetimes, no matter what we do now to address it.
I’m certainly in favor of taking steps to improve air quality, especially in the world’s largest cities, where it’s a major problem today. At the same time, reasonable steps are being taken, and continue to be taken, and air quality in most places is improving. Air quality should not be an obstacle to addressing climate change, except possibly on a localized basis, where it’s an unusually serious problem.
Air quality is also something that has not been well quantified by realities around us. For example, we all know smoking is bad for you, and in many places lung cancer has even become the leading cause of death. This is something that’s a clear and obvious threat. Air pollution is less clear, and while politicians consider it top priority, very little is being done to make it a relevant day to day issue for people. Lots of questions exist in my mind about the strategies being used to address air pollution.
For example, the two major components of diesel pollution are nitrous oxides and PM2.5 nano-particles. While I don’t deny these are dangerous, the issue is putting them into perspective. In the Netherlands, the places where nitrous oxide levels are considered high enough to be a health threat are in areas around intensive meat farms. I’m not aware of any serious efforts under way to address this pollution.
I also don’t have any reference for considering PM2.5. Who are the people dying or made sick by it? What are their symptoms and medical diagnoses? Besides politicians considering it serious, what other credible metrics can ordinary people use to gage it’s seriousness? Why is it that since the industrial revolution air quality has been an issue, but only now is it so urgent? This has not been well enough explained, and there is not enough independent science addressing the issue.
What about all of the freight being hauled by diesel fuel around the world: boats, trucks/lorries, trains? I read somewhere that diesel cars produce more pollution than other sources. Okay, if we accept that as true, a lot is being done to address the issue with cars. For example we now have low sulphur fuel and the EURO6 standard for diesel cars in Europe, although many people consider this inadequate. What is being done for the other sources of diesel pollution? Surely these cannot be considered completely insignificant? We have all lived with diesel pollution for all of our lives, so why is it so urgent now and isn’t it getting better anyway? If we phase out the use of fossil fuels, isn’t this a problem that will solve itself?
Why do we urgently need to address the issue of diesel pollution at the expense of climate change? At the moment diesel is one of the best, most established and cheapest technologies for reducing greenhouse emissions. Even hybrid electric cars are generally not more efficient than diesels, and diesels generally emit less greenhouse gases.
The High Price of Electricity
As a world, we pay a very high price for maintaining an electric grid and generating electricity centrally. It’s a very inefficient way to produce and distribute energy, it’s main benefit is convenience. Much of the generated electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels like coal or natural gas, and it’s often much more efficient to use these fossil fuels directly, to heat homes or run engines. We take major risks using nuclear technologies for this purpose. Even so-called renewable sources have their costs, cluttering landscapes and filling farmland with windmills or vast solar panel arrays, which all have their energy costs for construction and disposal.
At the moment, no one could even begin to argue that using electricity as a substitute for other fuels is a greener thing to do. Only about 5% of electricity comes from renewable sources now. Even if in the future we are able to generate 100% of our electricity from renewable sources, there will still be environmental costs. Some people even argue that nuclear power is green, because there’s no greenhouse gas emissions.
The argument that switching to electric cars is more environmentally friendly is seriously flawed. Now you have the inefficiencies of generating and transporting electricity that’s not sustainably produced, and even once that’s addressed you will still have problems associated with sustainable energy production as well as the manufacturing and disposal costs of the electric cars themselves. It’s very unlikely modern lithium ion car batteries will ever be effectively recycled, together with the rest of the circuitry in a modern electric car. In fact a great deal of mined finite resources go into electric cars, with few if any recycling possibilities. Air pollution is another issue, and electric cars may make sense in some areas for this reason, but electric cars are unlikely to be a complete or sustainable solution for climate change.
Another problem with electric cars is their enormous power consumption. You may not think of a light vehicle driving around on a battery as a fuel hog, but modern batteries are in fact very large and powerful. Those of you familiar with 3-phase power may appreciate that electric cars benefit with faster charging with such a connection, and in some cases an electric car can consume many times more than an entire household. Such a massive expansion of our power grids is not going to be a benefit to the environment, it’s only going to make the energy companies bigger and more powerful, and the wealthiest people richer. Reducing energy consumption is a better approach than increasing it.
It’s also an incomplete argument that you might be able to choose the energy company you buy power from, and therefore can buy renewable energy. If you draw power from the electric grid, it tends to come from the closest source. If the closest source is a nuclear plant, then that’s where your power comes from. Who you pay for using that power is more political than anything else, and is too dependent on government subsidies and taxes. It’s false logic to say that if everyone stops paying for non-renewable energy it will cease to exist, there are simply too many variables at play. If you want renewable energy, you need to generate it yourself.
Local Generation and Tesla vs Edison
Solar panels and electric cars have something very important in common, they both operate on DC current. On the other hand our houses operate on AC. Electricity generated by turning a turbine, like almost all modern electricity production, is also AC.
Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison are arguably two of the most important pioneers in electric power engineering. It turns out the two of them worked side by side and had some very important philosophical differences, especially regarding the benefits of AC vs DC.
The main difference is that AC can be more easily transported greater distances by means of a power grid, but DC is safer because the voltage is generally lower and can be stored more easily. It’s also a little costly to convert to and from AC and DC. In the end Tesla won, and except for small battery powered devices, we use AC almost exclusively at home.
Now, if we need DC power for example to charge our phones, we plug a converter into an electric outlet.
What’s interesting, now with solar panels and electric cars, is the same debates Edison and Tesla had are coming back. Since both solar panels and electric cars work on DC, it actually may be better to reassess if we actually need AC power at all, and if it would be better to base most things on DC power, and use a converter to change to AC when it’s really necessary.
Without AC power, it would not be possible to transfer it long distances with a power grid. However with the technology of solar panels rapidly improving and getting cheaper, it may be possible to generate the majority of our power locally. The problem now is it’s generally not feasible to power an electric car with solar panels alone, because a lot of solar panels are needed and electric cars need to be charged too frequently and rapidly. It is however feasible to power your home with solar panels, and if necessary to store the excess energy in a battery, possibly even a car battery. Converters can be used when necessary to power devices designed to operate on AC. This is not the future, this is very much the reality now.
What’s handy, especially because we are in a transition phase now where we still have an important electric grid, is being able to feed back to the grid. More specifically, there is a device called a grid-tie inverter, that converts DC power to AC in a form that can be fed onto the grid. This means the grid acts as a sort of large battery, and you can draw the power back when you need it. A grid-tie inverter can be purchased for as little as €100, and assuming your house is not fitted with a ‘smart meter’, you can feed onto the grid without your energy company knowing about it. A standard electric meter will turn forward when you use electricity, and backwards when you feed back to the grid.
A grid-tie inverter simply plugs into a standard electric outlet. If your grid-tie inverter has a capacity of more than 500w, it would be a good idea to use a dedicated circuit for it. An alternative is to use more than one inverter on different circuits, or a battery with a charge controller to delay feeding some of the power back to the grid to hours when there is little or no power coming from your solar panels.
Glass panel solar panels are now old school.
The latest solar panels are plastic and weigh about 1kg. They usually have grommets in the corners, and can be tied down with rope or fastened on a wall with a screw. They are more efficient than solar panels from a few years ago, meaning they work better in lower light environments and don’t necessarily need to get full sun all day long. A south facing wall is a good location. They are intended for ‘temporary installation’, meaning building permits are often not necessary and you can take them with you when you move. You also don’t need to put holes in your roof during installation. The electricity they generate is DC, which means there is little risk of shocks, and they are generally safer than standard household electricity.
The wiring is easy for anyone with very basic handyman skills, but be sure to pay attention to the current rating of the various components and ensure you are using sufficiently heavy cabling.
The relationship between watts, amps and voltage is as follows:
I = amps
E = voltage
P = wattsP = I * E
I = P / E
E = P / I
For a short length, typical installation, a 4mm cable is sufficient for 30A and a 6mm cable is sufficient for 50A. For distances longer than a few meters, be sure to consult an online calculator for the correct cable size. To save on wiring costs, consider installing a 24V system instead of a 12V one. 24V can be made by connecting 2 12V or 18V panels in series. Solar panels can be connected in parallel to combine their current outputs.
Poor connections, pinched cables or overloaded components are all fire hazards. Be sure to pay attention to these things.
In my case, a 2kW installation would meet most of my needs. That’s about 20 x 100w panels (€160 each), a grid-tie inverter for about €200, battery controller and battery, and some wiring. About €4000 in total, for a system that should generate about €500 of electricity per year at current prices. This would require about 10m2 of space on a wall or roof. All the work can be dome by most people themselves often without permits, just figure out what you need, buy the parts and install it. Everything can be bought online, almost anywhere in the world.
Prices will almost certainly come down further, so waiting might be a good idea.
My Conclusions
According to your personal situation, consider installing as many solar panels as is reasonable and possible. Consider doing it yourself, or hiring a simple handyman. Consider a long-term ‘temporary’ installation, without a contract with the energy company and without building permits. Consider the technology is rapidly changing, so if you are forced to sell your house with the solar panels still installed, it may be like trying to sell an old computer. Your house may have less resale value, and the new owner may want to install newer and better solar panels.
If you manage to install enough solar panels to heat and cool your house, as well as cook, great. Otherwise, consider natural gas where possible. This is more efficient than buying electricity. When you are completely satisfied that the electricity powering the grid is better, then buy the electricity.
If you live in one of the larger cities where air pollution is a serious problem, consider if you need to buy an electric car. Also, if you are able to generate enough electricity for a car, and only intend to drive it locally and charge at home, this might also be an option. Otherwise, consider buying a diesel.
By some accounts, the greenhouse gasses and other environmental problems coming from the power grid, is much worse than that of cars.
Remember, the goal is to minimize fossil fuel use. Think about this, don’t waste money on expensive new junk, and try not to buy consumer items that will become problems to dispose of in environmentally friendly ways. Remember to consider the energy used in manufacturing, transporting and recycling your purchase.
It’s better to do what’s right, then to do what politicians and corporations tell us to do.
