Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home

skyhawker writes "Yahoo! News is running an article about a New Jersey home that uses solar power to provide 100% of its energy needs, including fuel for the owner's hydrogen fuel cell-powered automobile. From the article: 'Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell. In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 percent more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter -- when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand -- to make electricity in the fuel cell.'"

I wonder...

[Ziwcam (766621)]

How MY neighbors would feel if I loaded up their roof with solar cells...

Re:I wonder...

[RingDev (879105)]

They probably wouldn't be too upset. Integrated solar shingles have come a long way: http://www.solar-components.com/pvshingl.htm [solar-components.com]

-Rick

Re:I wonder...

[rolfwind (528248)]

If you were my neighbor, I'd let you:) I might even let you have any excess electricity after my needs are met>:)

Re:I wonder...

[Panaflex (13191)]

I don't think they be quite so worried about that as they would the large tanks of hydrogen sitting in the back yard.

Somewhere in the world there's going to be a reddish explosion on the horizon...

Re:I wonder...

[plantman-the-womb-st (776722)]

But you happily store gasoline? You do realize that hydrogen has roughly 60% of the explosive power (potential energy) that gasoline does don't you? Storing hydrogen is far safer than storing propane even. Propane is also more explosive and since it is heavier than air it can fill areas in the event of a leak creating a massive explosion hazard. Hydrogen, on the other hand, can be stored in metal hydrides and be completely free from the possibility of accidental leaks even in cases of tank punctures and for that matter total tank destruction. Also, if the fuel hydrogen does leak it rapidly heads up and out of the atmosphere meaning your kids won't end up suffocating in a pool of sunken fuel with no oxygen.

But you are of course free to think what you like.

Just a half million dollars!

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

I'll get right on that!

One small problem

[by Anonymous Coward]

He eliminated his electric bill, but couldn't eliminate the fact that he is in New Jersey.

Okay, good idea, but this sucks

[zappepcs (820751)]

I just read all 37 pages of the Home Owners Association guide. While it doesn't strictly forbid solar panels on the roof, They are going to have to be the right color and anything visible has to be approved before construction. They definitely don't want any windmills, decorative or otherwise, not even as part of the mailbox!

So how, exactly, can I put some of this technology to work in stealth mode? Apparently this is not part of the neighborhood beautification plan?

Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

Move to a neighborhood without a draconian HOA.

And use a secure version of Windows, an honest attorney, or a Hooters franchise that doesn't debase women.

Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks

[Directrix1 (157787)]

I believe you underestimate the number of fascist bastions in America.

Payoff down the road

[Billosaur (927319)]

From the article:

Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about $4,000 a year when its $100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment. That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government. Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination.

Mind you, once you've bought the equipment, there are only the maintenance costs over that 25 years, where as the price of energy will undoubtedly continue to increase. And the price of solar cells is dropping, so the cost may go lower than $100,000. I for one would love to have solar -- not having to pay for electricity, being able to run my Christmas lights 365 days a year, and not losing my power in a blackout. Also, if you generate excess electricity, you can sell it to the utility companies, and actually make a buck when you have excess power.

Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean...

[Tristandh (723519)]

Solar power is nice since it does not pollute when in use and generating power. However, mass production of solar cells is very taxing for the environment. So I can't help but wondering which is worse: 1000 sq. ft. (which is, accounting for chip packaging and other overhead, still a HUGE silicon area) or heating the old fashioned way (e.g. with gas, which is less polluting than say coal, and using decent insulation) and using a car that is not a fuel-hungry SUV...

Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean...

[Your Pal Dave (33229)]

If your going to include production for solar panels you need to remember that fossil fuels don't exactly jump out of the ground and into your furnace. Strip mines, refineries, natural gas production [newwest.net] all have a significant environmental cost.

Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean...

[hey! (33014)]

Over what timespan?

Assuming a lifespan of 40 years, I'd guess that it is less polluting to use solar cells than to use fossil fuels. Furthermore, if solar cells were leased instead of sold (providing a long term revenue stream for solar energy companies), old cells could be remanufactured by the suppliers at a fraction of the original environmental and energy costs.

Facts, not FUD

[MyNymWasTaken (879908)]

More facts please; less FUD. All the PV detractor statements revolve around the concept that PV cells are dirty to produce and never produce more energy than is required to create them. No references are ever provided. It is all nothing more than "it's obvious" FUD.

Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth.
[...]
During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with a 2-year energy payback and meeting half of a household's electricity use would avoid conventional electrical-plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide

What is the Energy Payback for PV? [nrel.gov]

Major limitations to the accuracy of this assessment are the difficulties in determining realistic energy conversion factors, and in determining realistic energy values for human labour. For this reason an allowance of up to 100% has been allowed, thus the range of payback is between 2-8 years. Thus small-scale roof mounted PV systems have a positive energy payback and are capable of contributing to a sustainable energy future.

Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells [energybulletin.net]

Big deal, I eliminated all utility costs in my

[antifoidulus (807088)]

place by not paying the bill 6 months in a row. It's amazing, your monthly electric costs will drop to 0 very quickly!

Quit doubting it based on cost.

[Lethyos (408045)]

People are whining about how it costs a half-million dollars. It is so expensive because of low volume. We need early adopters like this guy to start the ball rolling. Once more people buy into this form of energy production, the cheaper it will become.

Renu by CitizenRe

[Paulrothrock (685079)]

For those who don't want to bother with the expense of buying and installing your own PV system, there's Renu [citizenre.com]. With a $500 deposit, they'll design and install an grid-tied PV system for you and charge you only for what it produces at the current rate, which you can lock in for 5 or 25 years. And if you've got a 25 year contract they'll move the system when you move.

Only expensive for now

[tarlos25 (1036572)]

Of course it will be expensive for the early adopters. But as solar panels mature, and more energy independence options become available, it will be much more economically feasible. The first people to do this don't do it for the monetary savings (or if they do, they're wrong), they do it to make a statement that it can be done.

I guess the "early adopter" price is $0.5M

[Proteus (1926)]

Yeah, at $0.5M US, it's a steep price to pay just to be free of utility bills, or just to be "green". But please don't forget that it still has value.

This early adopter is proving that you *can* be self-sufficient using solar energy. That's a big deal. And, if a people -- and more importantly, organizations -- start seeing solar energy as having potential, more people will fund research into improving the technology and making it cheaper. At least, that's the hope.

Early adopters help drive the price of technology down, so don't be so quick to judge this guy's choice -- he's helping to make solar power more available to the masses, in his own small way.

Besides, in being the first, he'll probably make back his $500K in promotional considerations and/or the lecture circuit. ;-)

Our green home in Calgary, Canada

[rjinbanff (69460)]

Hi all,

My wife and I have been building a green, eco-friendly home in the heart of oil-city Canada - Calgary, Alberta. We have been blogging about our experiences at ramsayhome.com [ramsayhome.com]. We have had quite the experience so far...we had to fire our first contractor, dismantle some of the work, continue with a new contractor, etc. Everything is back on-track though and we will be posting some new pictures this weekend.

Oh the humanity.

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

A big tank of pure hydrogen gas in your basement, eh? That's great! I don't see what could possibly go wrong with that.

In fact, you should celebrate a job well done. Have a cigar!

/run

Home Solar Systems - do it right.

[m.dillon (147925)]

Solar water heating is very inexpensive and environmentally friendly (because no solar cells are actually needed, just something to soak up the sun's heat and a heat exchanger). You generally want to get a closed system heat exchanger, with a separate fluid loop, and not actually loop the water heater's water through the solar unit.

Battery backup is *NOT* inexpensive, nor is it environmentally friendly. Only lead-acid batteries have the kind of capacity required and they need maintainance and space and have relatively short lifespans (5-10 years typically). They require a separate charging system and a transfer switch. In short... if you have a good connection to the utility, putting together a battery system is not worth the cost.

The cheapest most environmentally sensitive solar electric system are standard solar panels and a direct grid-tie inverter. Not the shingles or any of the other experimental junk... they just don't have the life span or the efficiency. Zero maintainance, very long life. This is what I have on my roof.

In terms of (almost) zeroing out your electricity bill with net-meetering... well, it is fairly inexpensive if you have a newer home with energey efficient appliances. My system is somewhat bigger then a standard home needs, 2.5KW, and I can't zero out my electricity bill because I have a machine room. Note however that no solar system can even come close to the electricity requirements of a home Air Conditioner. If you need air conditioning you will never be able to zero-out your electricity bill with a standard 'home' solar electric system.

Solar Cell Manufacturing has gotten a lot better over the years. The environmental cost for manufacturing a panel is something like 6 months now vs the 30 year+ lifespan of the panel. Direct grid-tie inverters take up very little space and require no maintainance whatsoever. Generally you want to use a high voltage inverter, where the solar panels are linked in series instead of in parallel. Such inverters are a lot less bulky then LV systems (and the wiring is a lot less bulky too because it is high-voltage and low-current instead of low-voltage and high-current). My recommendation is a Sunny Boy direct-tie inverter. Never use an inverter which requires a fan.

Some states, in particularly California, have extremely good rebate programs. The Federal tax credit is crap.

Neighbors of mine have tried the shingles, and have tried flexible solar mats on their roofs, with terrible results.

http://apollo.backplane.com/Solar/ [backplane.com]

Re:DAMMIT!

[szembek (948327)]

Don't sever your connection. If you have any surplus energy, the supplier will pay you for it.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[n2art2 (945661)]

Read the whole article, please people. . . .

FTA: "While the cost may deter all but wealthy environmentalists from converting their homes, Strizki and his associates stress the project is designed to be replicated and that the price tag on the prototype is a lot higher than imitators would pay. Now that first-time costs of research and design have been met, the price would be about $100,000, Strizki said."

But then again it is more sensational for you to use the R&D cost of $500,000 right?

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[microTodd (240390)]

So you're saying the ONLY reason to switch is to save money? What about other reasons? Saving the environment? Being a good steward to the Earth? Being an ubergeek?

There's more to life than money...

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Matt Perry (793115)]

I pay an average of $150/month for electricity, $50/month for natural gas, and $200/month for gasoline.

Today you pay that rate. Don't assume that energy costs won't continue to rise over the next 10-20 years.

Proof of concept - cost is a side issue

[AJWM (19027)]

Sure it's not cost effective. Prototypes and one-offs rarely are.

As a proof-of-concept, though, it's highly successful. This guy is demonstrating, not just hand-waving, that one can be entirely energy self-sufficient through solar power, even with the crappy efficiency of current mass produced photovoltaic panels.

Find a way to increase the efficiency and/or drop the price of the panels (and H2 storage system, fuel cells, etc) and it starts to look really attractive. More so if you want to build somewhere way off-grid. And without some of the attendant problems of a windmill.

The next time somebody argues that you can't live off-grid just on solar power, you can point to this guy. Then the argument comes down to cost-effectiveness, which depends on a lot of other factors.

Re:Proof of concept - cost is a side issue

[Stewie241 (1035724)]

But what really needs to be looked at is the OVERALL cost. What I mean by this, is: What are the environmental costs of producing the panels? What byproducts does this produce (i.e. another poster mentioned product of hydrogen vehicle... H20 - on a small scale this has negligible effect, on a large scale, what would this do?)? What happens to the panels when they eventually degrade? Is this safe waste? I don't know the answers... just raising the questions. Ian

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Deagol (323173)]

And this is the reason so few people (including me) are "green".

Then you, like this guy (and so many others), sadly miss the point of "being green".

I used to subscribe to Home Power Magazine [homepower.com], and while they have some great technical and inspiring articles, I got fed up with what some call "greenie weenies". All too often each magazine showcases some 3000+ square foot home built buy some lawyer or retired electrical engineer in 20+ remote acres in northern California, the array itself often costing way more than a typical house for the average American. While technologically cool, these monster systems defeat the purpose of actually giving a shit about one's footprint upon this tiny planet of ours.

These well-to-do yuppies invariably pat themselves on the back for installing huge solar/wind arrays, so they can heat/cool their huge houses, power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences, and live "normal" lives while thinking they've actually made a difference. I argue that houses that large, with all the materials included in their construction, negate *any* good the lifetime of alternative energy produced will provide to the global system.

Sure, not all folks who install these systems do it for altruistic reasons -- why not take advantage of tax write-offs/credits and state/federal subsidies, or that $100k system may be cheaper than running the grid 5 miles to their big new homes. But it really chaps my hide when these types are actually lauded for a contribution to society that they, in fact, haven't made.

Until technology advances to a near-limitless source of non-polluting power such as fusion, conservation means making a real sacrifice in your lives for the greater good. It *should* be a painful, daily reminder to the practitioners -- like how some religious fasting is supposed to remind its practitioners of humility, etc.. And even beyond the power aspect, resources of *all* types should be conserved. What the hell does a yuppie DINK (double-income-no-kids) couple *need* a house with a square footage over 1000? They don't. I covet libertarian ideals enough, and I loathe the idea of telling people how to enjoy their lives. However, the tragedy of the commons is alive and well on this planet, and it saddens me when even well-to-do folks, who often *can* make a real impact, choose not to out of some sort of entitlement.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Deagol (323173)]

Well at least you're internally consistent an honest person, which puts you above quite a few others. The ones who buy a few organically grown bath robes from whatever trendy simple living magazine they get in the mail and call themselves "green" are the folks that should be hung out to dry as hypocrites.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[CohibaVancouver (864662)]

>the reason so few people are green

I think the reason is the one you suggest lower down in your post - The cost.

I should really improve my insulation, but don't. Why? Because there's no payback in natural gas savings.

I could install solar heat, but I don't. Why? No payback.

I could buy a hybrid car. I don't. Why? No payback

...so I do the things I can afford: Recycle, fix dripping taps, take the bus when I can. I realize there are often higher-purpose reasons than cost savings, but many people simply can't *afford* to be green.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[ohearn (969704)]

>>the reason so few people are green

>I should really improve my insulation, but don't. Why? Because there's no payback in natural gas savings.

>...so I do the things I can afford: Recycle, fix dripping taps, take the bus when I can. I realize there are often higher-purpose reasons than cost savings, but many people simply can't *afford* to be green.

I spent less than $700 and one full day of labor for me and my wife on a weekend on insulation on my house Fall of '05. The savings on the utility bill paid for the cost of the insulation (including the price of renting the blower to blow it in and buying a decent ladder) in less than a year.

I also replaced all the windows in my home with triple pane Low-E argon filled windows earlier this year. Yeah that ran me just shy of $5000 installed. I financed it through the same company I bought the windows from 1 year same as cash. I expect the energy savings to pay for the windows in roughly 7 years. The new windows also look a lot better and came with a lifetime warranty against breakage that is transferable if I sell my house. The added value to my home will almost pay for the windows by itself if I sell the house.

I agree that solar panels, hybrid cars, even projects like the windows I did can have a high up front cost. A lot of people cannot afford that cost up front, but simple projects like insulation, sealing around doors better, etc. are cheap and really will start having benefits that add up pretty quickly.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Technician (215283)]

I could buy a hybrid car. I don't. Why? No payback

People play the no payback card all the time but few stop to do the math.

I bought a used Prius (1 year old) for $18,000. My Wife bought a minivan at at the same time for the same price. The math for the no payback was for new vehicles for those who drove fewer than 20K miles/year and gas was $1.50/gallon.

I had the forsite to know the resale value whould hold up on the Prius (have fun, look up the resale of a 02 Caravan and a 02 Prius). I am not singing the depreciation blues. I can get most of my money back out today if I wanted. With gas at near $3.00 a gallon and I'm reaching 100K miles, I am seeing my payback now. Some cars need a transmission replacement for nearly $4K after 100K miles. The $5K battery replacement everyone was afraid of is now a $3600 dollar item, It is cheaper than a transmission replacement. It is possible to replace a failed 7.2V cell instead of all 36 in the entire pack.

As a bonus, my Prius doubles as a replacement source of electric power while traveling or during outages. I have installed a 1KW inverter. While not driving the power not used for the heater/AC, lights, defroster, power steering, air brake compressor, etc, is easly diverted without overloading the electrical system. It is the most fuel effecient electrical generator I have ever used. The car side of things is 20KW. When parked the engine shuts off instead of running constantly. It starts up and runs a few minutes then shuts back down to repeat in about 20 minutes. This is perfect for running the freezer in an outage. I don't have the engine running all the time when it isn't needed.

Add a few CF lights, the laptop, and the TV to the mix and a tank of gas lasts for days unlike a portable generator. I have run 3 days this way and used less than a quarter tank of gas. (13 gal tank)

I'm a green

[mdsolar (1045926)]

Yes, I'm a green and I act like an entrepeneur, not a terroist. From the article:

"You need to make the financing within reach of real people," Wentworth said.

That part is done as you'll see at my home page: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar [jointhesolution.com]

You can get solar for no more than you're paying now for electricity, no installation fee, no permit hassles, and no rate increases for up to 25 years.

I love what Mr. Strizki has done but I wish he'd heard of this opportunity first.

Actually $4000 per year is a bargain.

[goombah99 (560566)]

It's crucial to realize that it's not important what the average homeowner pays per year for energy. What's important is how many homeowners pay more than $4000 per year for energy.

many people would balk at the $100,000/25 year price tag of this solar home. that's 4000 per year for yout energy needs. Right now people pay about 1000 to 1500 per year on gasoline for their cars and another 1000+ to heat their homes. THe article says that people pay $1500 fo their energy needs but I suspect that might be per person not per home, since the figure is too low.

Since it's certain that energy costs are going to rise faster than inflation it seems like locking in $4000 per year cost would be terrific. So the real issue is capitalizing this up front, and working to make it even more affordable.

Moreover, if everyone did this then my tax bill could remove some of the kilobucks I spend on military, homeland security, oil industry subsidy, and heath and environment costs for pollution.

this guy is using solar to generate hydrogen so he can store the energy for winter time and run his car. That storage and conversion to transportation fuels is perhaps more significant than the efficiency.

It seems very likely to me that nanotechnology break thoughs are the kind of thing likely to at least double or quadruple the efficiency of going from solar to hydrogen, and probably have a similar effect on the conversion of hydrogen back to locomotion or electricity. So I could see the cost of this dropping in a couple decades. Does that mean we should wait for that? Id' say no. just like the pharma industry, the huge profits have also bought lots of medical research.

If the world power consumption stays on its current growth rate, and if anything it's poised to accelerate, then by 2040 we will need to double the worlds energy production. To put this in perspective, if you were doing this via nuclear power alone it would mean building a gigawatt plant every day for the next 30 years. There is not enough water to do it with biofuels unless there is a breakthrough. One can do it with Shale oil, but the carbon load will create a crisis. So while shale oil may clamp the price of oil, carbon sequestration will up the cost. It's very easy to imagine that world wide competition for energy will either lead to enormous prices, environmental crisis or war, unless steps are taken to create a variable marketbasket of more environmental and cost effective renewable energy sources. Oil will always be part of the mix but it can't be the only source.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[AnotherHiggins (925608)]

You pulled that number out of your butt very authoritatively.

It will likely be yet another 15-20 years before solar power is a viable option for the average homeowner.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

I agree. At this time, if I put $100,000 (the quoted production cost for the system) into the bank, it would generate roughly 4,700 (risk free). It would still be generating it as the solar system broke down in 25 years.

I was very excited to read that prices are dropping 7% per year however. That would imply the production cost would be roughly $50,000 in 6 years. $50,000 in six years is very unlikely to generate enough interest income to cover gasoline and electricity (my electric runs about $1800 a year and gas about $1200 a year).

I've been tracking this for the last six years and every year, solar looks promising but doesnt' make sense yet without government grants. But it is getting there and it won't be long before it starts to put pressure on the price of oil.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[caseydk (203763)]

I was very excited to read that prices are dropping 7% per year however. That would imply the production cost would be roughly $50,000 in 6 years. $50,000 in six years is very unlikely to generate enough interest income to cover gasoline and electricity (my electric runs about $1800 a year and gas about $1200 a year).

Even at 25 years - the expected lifetime of the system - this brings the cost down to $2k/year. The article also says that the "average" US household spends about $1500 on electric/year. So it's getting close, but it's not quite there. Personally, I'm looking forward to buildings who have huge roofs (think Walmart, etc) install solar cells.... they're likely to be the first to do it just to cut costs.

Unfortunately, they're still going to get hammered by the Greens, because:
1) having a huge areas of dark material are going to increase the air temperature in the immediate area; and
2) once they're off the grid, the demand goes down, so the price goes down which slows people's motivation to convert or conserve.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[HeyMe (935075)]

New solar cells developed with nano-technology at the University of Toronto (http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050110-832.asp [utoronto.ca] ) convert light from the blue-yellow end of the spectrun down to the near-infrared (current cells work only in the bluie-yellow end of the visible spectrum). This could increase the conversion efficiency by a factor of 5. Additionally, this technology lends itself to be able to literally print the cells on a plastic substrate, significantly lowering manufacturing costs.

Currently, a typical home solar setup produces about 4.5 KW (max) and costs about US $25,000 to install. Payback takes about 20 years. If this new technology could change both numbers by a conservative factor of say, 3, you'd be looking at 13.5 KW (max) systems going for about US $8,500, and payback times of 5 years or so. Then, you'd have something.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

There are also pretty nice benefits to having solar when a storm knocks out the grid.

But, don't forget batteries (and charges to discard them are only going to increase).

You have 3 sets of batteries over 20 years.

You are almost certain to blow at one inverter too ($2kish today).

And you can bet on this.

If enough people do it, the government is going to start taxing it (to replace lost revenue from your current power bill).

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[shaitand (626655)]

Don't be silly, you'd just toss the batteries in the trash like you do now.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

But, don't forget batteries (and charges to discard them are only going to increase).

I'd plan rather to install a flywheel. It can be buried, eliminating issues with flywheels ripping loose from their mountings and rolling over the landscape, demolishing all in their path.

Flywheels are a bad idea for vehicles due to mass and inertia issues; even hydrogen gas is better in terms of safety since it wants to go up so very badly and get out of the picture. But in a stationary application where you can bury them and let the earth handle safety, they are a very good plan. On top of that they can be made with a steel frame, assembled on-site, and then filled with concrete, then balanced by attaching weights or removing concrete so they are easy to ship (and the concrete could be padded out with local rock, decreasing shipping weight.)

But most importantly, depending on what you make them out of (concrete not being the best example I admit) flywheels can be clean and green. They last pretty much forever, with the caveat that your bearings must occasionally be replaced, and they are relatively small devices so the environmental impact is minimized. Making and recycling batteries, these are both nasty processes involving lots of toxic chemicals.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Buried fly wheels can be in vaccum canisters floating on magnetic bearings. Absolutely no servicing. Further the energy stored in a flywheel is proportional to the moment of inertia of the wheel and square of the angular velocity (or rpm). Thus to increase the capcity it is better to jack up the speed than size. With electronics integrated in the housing, you would actually have a few dozen small flywheels rather than one large one. Again remove and replace the small defective flywheel.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Xaoswolf (524554)]

It would still be generating it as the solar system broke down in 25 years.

If the solar system breaks down in 25 years, I don't think I'll be worrying about money in the bank...

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[cheezit (133765)]

Clearly the photons are defective and are falling on to the floor soon after they leave the fixture. Have you tried greasing the air? They would slide farther.

Re:Sounds great...

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

Most solar panels are covered under warranty for 80% of their maximum rated power output for 25 years, and the panels themselves are generally expected to last around 40 years, though efficency does decline over time.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Yonder Way (603108)]

Parent poster is spreading FUD that hasn't been true for decades. Modern solar panels have a much longer life expectancy these days and enough bang for the buck to make the conversion worthwhile in expensive energy markets like New Jersey. I wonder if Elmer FUD here works for an energy company.

Incidentally, many homes across America have been "off the grid" for some time now. The solar array here is not news at all, nor is it even unusual among alternative energy enthusiasts. http://homepower.com/ [homepower.com] has bee documenting this sort of thing for many years now.

Re:Anybody got any insulation studies?

[cdn-programmer (468978)]

If you bring the insulation in the walls to about R50 (fibergalss is fine) and the ceiling to about R70 then you can get rid of the furnace. The cost of insulating the house is going to be in the taking the walls apart and putting them back together... the isulation itself should cost you about a buk per square foot.

Along with this you want to install a very good vapour barrier and calk the plastic together. Air seepage is a major loss of energy. Use a heavy polyethlene sheeting as well. Remember - you only need to do this once and after it is done it will pay you dividends for as long as you own the place. When you sell it make sure you ask for a premium.

Next... the way to do this is to screw a 2x2 spacer onto the studs. Then screw a 2x2 to the spacer. Use about 3 of them per stud. The extension should make the wall exactly 1 foot thicker. This is sort of important for the finishing.

The windows and doors will then be in pockets. You probably won't want to feel like you are looking through a tunnel.

So get some mirror tiles (1 foot by 1 foot) and glue them to the sides of the window frame. That will finish it nicely. Get a nice floor tile and glue it to the bottom. Now you can put plants in the windows where they belong! Any water will not bother the tiles.

You'll have to move all of the electrical services of course... and with the walls apart you may as well wire it properly. Put plugs near the corners... within say 30" of the corners. People like to put coffee tables and end tables in corners and need plugs nearby. Many contractors like to put the plug in the middle of the wall. This is a pain. Their reasoning must be that you can always pull the couch out and use an extension cord.

While you are at it - install at least cat 5 and lots of telephone jacks and cable TV jacks. These should not be daisy chained together like electrical... they should run back to a service center. Label everything with plastic tags that won't fall off.

These little details will not cost you much and it is just so NICE to be able to have a separate phone line for instance for the kids or for a tenant down the track. Make sure you have two phone jacks in each drop... the duplex boxes cost about the same as the singles and you might want to add a fax someday.

Note: The future of telephones is probably VoIP and you might want to run an Asterix server someday as this will provide both local and long distance services to any other asterix server at no cost. This means you can probably call up your phone company and tell them to take a hike and cancel your services. This alone will pay for the wiring in about a year or less.

Finally... if you can figure out a way... see if you can provide a way to run fiber optics. I _think_ one way might be to just install plastic conduit into each room. Its pretty easy to fish whatever cables you might need in the future through a conduit. I've not priced this out... Also - talk to an electrician about how the fishing will be done. Electricians are brlliant at this.

I redid my house about 10 years ago. I made some mistakes and not thinking far enough ahead was the big one. So I ended up trying to figure how I could run 10base-T over TV cables. Now we have wireless.

But I still think that in the future if we get fiber to the house then we'll want fiber in the house... and this means to each room.

Before you start... watch Total Recall. Arnie and Stone have a gorgeous view from their window. Note this scene... its not a window - its a flat panel display that looks like a window. I expect these will be common place within about a decade.

Regardless where people live they tend to live in houses most of the time and look out windows. I see no reason why a camera can't be mounted at a nice beach and the image displayed in real time in a display that looks like a window. The displays are being built by companies like Westaim (wed.to) http://www.westaim.co [westaim.com]

House within a house.

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

I have a neighbor who built a house within a house; the interior is a vaulted tunnel structure, and the exterior shell is made from breaze-blocks supporting an A-frame roof. With a minimum of two feet of space separating the walls of the two structures, there's plenty of room for insulation.

The interior is heated with a single wood-stove. It also uses deep-well windows fixed to aim at the Sun during the Winter months, using glass treated with a one-way filter for IR light. Even in the depths of Winter, you find yourself stripping down to tank-tops and tee shirts at almost no fuel expenditure. This is the most impressive use of insulation I've ever heard of. I don't know any of the R-values or other engineering quantities of the various materials.

Insulation. It isn't sexy, but when applied properly, it's the single cheapest and most effective way to keep a home warm in the winter.

By contrast, I was renting a 100 year-old house with terrible insulation; even with a new roof and lots of high-tech fiberglass pink, we were paying stupid heating bills which were basically a quarter of our monthly rent. Sounds like your situation.

As an experiment, I lined one of the exterior walls, (on the inside), with tin foil which I covered over with cloth, leaving about an inch of space between the cloth and the foil. The idea is that the foil reflects the IR back into the room. (Like an empty chip bag; when you hold your hand inside and do not touch the plastic/foil then your hand quickly starts to heat up.) This in combination with the facts that heat rises, and that the room was on the top floor, the results were that it was the coziest room in the whole building; always at least 5 to 10 degrees warmer than anywhere else in the house under normal heating conditions.

When I finally get around to building my own place, I'll be investing heavily the smart use of lots of insulation. Buying lots of heating fuel or electricity to heat should be totally unnecessary given the technology we currently possess.

-FL