"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/16 12:44, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:24:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:

In Germany when there is a surplus of power, they pay you to use (or
store) it.
You can then export power into the grid from the batteries later and
get paid.
Thus you get paid twice.
Once for importing, and once for exporting.
Now that should encourage people to install batteries thus solving
the intermittancy problem!

It hasn't a hope of solving that problem, or even making a noticeable
difference. A little basic maths will show you how unrealistic such an
idea is.


Except that it isn't mathematically unrealistic.

There is enough power in the sun for each person to collect enough power
to satisfy their own personal needs (including charging up their
electric car) if we have a means to store it across the "dark" periods
of the day/year.


Except we don't.

I know that we don't

the premise is that someone has invented a method and the response was "he
can't have, because it can't work"

I'm quite prepared to accept genuine engineering reasons why this "new"
storage proposal doesn't work, but the OP's claimed reason is just false

Which is where the mathematics shows it to be completely unrealistic. And
the mathematics doesn't just show its uneconomic, it shows that for a
broad range of 'possible' its not in fact *possible* either.

Rubbish.

We have the basic technology now. Just fill your garage and garden shed up
with car batteries.

Oh people don't have garages anymore, Oh dear, what a sensible move that
was.

That this costs more in batteries than just buying the electricity from the
grid doesn't make this mathematically impossible.


Renewable energy *storage* is just cat belling.


Ditto for the majority of companies who don't use electricity as a "raw
material" in their production.

The fact that the storage costs aren't economic, doesn't make it
mathematically impossible.


???

I think you are mad. If someone says to me 'this burger costs £5' and I
say 'I only have £2 in my pocket' the mathematics is telling me I can't
have that burger unless I steal it.

But that isn't the premise.

No-one mentioned that it was impossible because you only have 2 pounds, the
original claim was the equivalent of "you can't buy the burger because there
are enough cows".

(Of course as a reneawable energy person the concept of stealing from
others disguised as an altruistic act, comes naturally...)

Nothing in my post suggest that I support the concept that this technology
should be subsidised

tim