Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home 743
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
-Rick
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Somewhere in the world there's going to be a reddish explosion on the horizon...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But when he says something and it is repeated, it should be noted in the context of how it was said. Al Gore claimed that internal combustion engines should be done away with. But the context was if there was anything that could be done differently what would it be. It changes the entire meaning of wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think shale will be harvested in the future.
But the problem perhaps - may be that as long as "Cheap Oil (tm)" exists, then it is very important to have access to cheap oil in order to globally competitive. or example, if China were to be getting "Cheap Oil tm" and the US were to try to compete economically or militarily with an economy powered by "uncheap oil (cl)" it would place the US at a long term disadvantage.
So in a sense, regardless of the cost, it is a competitive probl
Re:Insightful? (Score:4, Informative)
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
This is the "stop loss" clause. Of course, it might interest you to know that only a few critical job classifications are covered by "stop loss". The way most service members are being held over on active duty has fuck all to do with "stop loss". Morons continue to call all extensions of active duty "stop loss" because they don't bother to do any research. Most service members are actually being held on active duty by a much more mundane thing: contractual obligation.
You see, when you enlist, you are signing up for eight years. Sure, the recruiter said 3 or 4 years of "active duty", but the part the weasel recruiters don't mention is that the 3 or 4 years is only the minimum. They reserve the right to keep you around ducking bullets and crapping in a hole for eight years. When you sign up, you're betting that Uncle Sugar won't have a pressing need for your services at the end. Right now, he does. Tough shit, man. It was in the contract. I know all about this kind of shit. I enlisted for four years originally, and currently have a total of 6 years active duty service time. In my case my reserve unit was called up (twice) rather than me being held over, but it's all the same crap sandwich, really. I'm in my last year of obligation, so it looks like I might be able to keep it at that...
For those interested in how it really works, here [about.com] is a good overview that will dispell a lot of the ignorance spewed by dumbass journalists and politicians.
Re:Insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody in his right mind thinks the troops have signed on for a struggle that is going to last for decades.
If you want to be legalistic, then the only declared war was over Sadaam's WMD. That's long over. We're dicking around in a conflict now. If it were warfare, we'd be winning. It's not and we're not. What it is is nation building. Our guys mostly aren't fighting battles, they're trying to police a country full of hostile inhabitants, a task they're not trained or equipped to do.
Technically, I'm not arguing that the President can't use stop loss. What I'm arguing is that it is morally wrong to use a clause that's there for dealing with a state of war to turn the military into a police force.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
But you are of course free to think what you like.
At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the reason so few people (including me) are "green".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, keep in mind that $500,000 is the cost of one person doing it, the first time. Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices.
This is the line that people have been saying for 20 years now. The fact of the matter is that solar power hasn't yet reached a point where cells are efficient enough to pay back the initial monetary cost in a reasonable time frame. Prices have fallen a lot, and will continue to fall. However, there is still a long ways to go. 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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Funny)
How about something like this? (Score:3, Informative)
If they have both nanotech ducks in a row there, you could do without the batteries even...
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny, I've had two sets of batteries operating concurrently for 16 years and they are as good as the day I acquired them. That's 24 x 2 volt, 660 amp-hour flooded lead-acid cells.
I maintain them carefully, which is probably why I've never had to replace them, whereas others who think that batteries will look after themselves, seem to be replacing theirs every few years, at great expense.
I'm tired of hearing from all these people WITH NO EXPERIENCE WITH PV SYSTEMS telling the world how inadequate such systems are when I've been off-grid for years with no problems ever.
Then there are the guys who buy a PV panel or two, rustle up a few old car batteries, and think they can live utility bill-free forever...then whine like little girls when they don't get the performance they expected and there system craps out in a short time.
It's like any geek project: you have to plan and maintain.
Calculate the size of your PV array, then add another 50% capacity to cover unforseen loads (which always appear). Those who tell you that the juice dries up at the first sight of a cloud are talking out their asses, as usual. You will still get plenty of amps from a decent array on even the cloudiest of days. The only time your PV panel power quits is at night. If in doubt, add a wind generator to your system.
Obtain the heaviest cable you can. I've seen big systems wired together with ridiculously thin stuff, just to save a few bucks. Result? Burning smells, dim lights, and dashed hopes. And do a nice tidy job with all cable runs and connections. Duct tape and blutak just doesn't cut it. Work like a pro or don't waste your time.
Get a decent regulator and inverter. Over-estimate you loads, so that the unit can cope with peaks you otherwise wouldn't have anticipated. And get the type you can download live data from, as the difference it makes in your ability to manage your system is immense. It's hard manage a thing when you have no clue what it's doing. Extra money, yes, but either spend the cash or stick to paying your utility, the Piss-Or-Get-Off-The-Pot plan.
Acquire the correct battery type. Most people seem to want sealed lead-acid or gel types, which is fine, but they are blackboxware, and almost impossible to maintain, since you don't really know what's happening inside them. I've seen many of those type die brand-new. Why? There's no way of knowing. These types may be "cleaner" to have around the home (no electrolyte top-ups), but in the long term they actually cost a lot more, since you have to replace them fairly often, and a random selection of cells are guaranteed to fail prematurely at awkward moments.
I prefer flooded lead-acid cells. No, you can't use cheap car or truck batteries and have a usable system. It'll be fucked within months, or even weeks. And "Marine deep-cycle" batteries are not much better. You have to use the right type, and as far as I'm concerned that's the (usually) 2 volt flooded lead-acid standby/telecommunication variety. Heavy as hell, very expensive to buy new, but will last most people's lifetime, literally, if properly maintained, which means you have to forget all that shit your friend's cousin's brother told you, and learn something. It's not difficult or time-consuming, but the results are very expensive and inconvenient for the retards to lazy or stupid to take the time to do so.
A working off-grid system is perfectly feasible, a fact which many of us with working off-grid systems can and will attest to. Yes, it takes work, time, and money, and probably cost you less to stay on-grid, but if you don't care about that, or have no choice, then it's easily doable, so ignore the fuckwads claiming it isn't, because chances-are good THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL WITH THE STUFF THEY'RE BLATHERING ON ABOUT.
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
>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? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right. I have two friends that could be used as an example of this. One owns a brand new Prius the other owns a 12 year old Geo Metro with over 200,000 miles on it. The Prius gets real world millage of about 55-60mpg. The old Metro with it's 3 cylinder engine and bad muffler gets 65-70mpg. The one with the Metro tends to snicker a little when the one with the Prius complains about his car payment and t
I'm a green (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Slave to the Grid (Score:3, Insightful)
You claim that the transmission and distribution of that electricity must rely on accurate operation and proper maintenance of its lines. But what happens when demand excee
Actually $4000 per year is a bargain. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This is the same mistake they make about traffic (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Um, nope... Our use of energy, and roads increase to fill existing capacity. You could double the amount of energy produced tomorrow, and the number of roads and what'd happen is that our use would simply double to fill it. If we cap our energy production or roads, our use will remain static at the current level. If you reduce the energy production or roads, we will simply use them more efficiently.
The key concept is that it's a general principle. We tend towards the use of all available capacity of a reso
Since when is $100K over 25 years equal to $4,000? (Score:3, Interesting)
Go to your bank for a mortgage. They won't make the same mistake. $100K over 25 years, at today's 7% rate is about $8600 per year. If you'll give me $100K now I'll give you $5,000 per year and be happy to do it.
I hate how people who should know their math, people who own homes, people who sell solar panels, can make such a basic mistake.
At today's prices, PV _never_ pays for itself compared to grid power. Not in 12 years, not in 50 years, not ev
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The TVM ("time value of money") on a $100,000 investment is $5,000 to $10,000 per year, depending on your investment preferences. That means that it costs the owner of the house ~$7,500 per year just to own the house. That is to say, the house costs its owner an amount of money equal to the wealth that the $100,000 could've created elsewhere (such as in a small business that needs money to exp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Distributed power means massive redundancy, with the benefits you noted. But massive redundancy is very expensive. Even if you've got volume discounts for batteries and converters and the like, you're still going to have to purchase lots and lots of them, and allocate space for them, and in$tall them, and maintain them over time. Maintenance requires technicians driving around in vans,
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's more to life than money...
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One comparable example is aluminum beverage cans. If you look at them closely, they're a marvel of precision engineering. Still, they currently don't cost much more than 5 cents per piece to make, mostly because they
Proof of concept - cost is a side issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Geez..you must not have much stuff, eh?
I'm a single guy, and my stuff easily takes up and fills 1400-1700 sqft. I usually go for 3 bedroom places...one for bedroom, one for office (and several servers that stay on 24/7), and one for my hobby storage area (and spare bedroom too if needed) for all my beer making stuff, burners, propane tanks, etc.
That was when I was renting...I'm l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Family of 4 in 800-ft^2 house. In least in real estate terms. There's maybe 400 more upstairs, but it doesn't count due to the ceiling being slanted. More like loft space.
Life is too short to do without and be a drudgery...
Living w/o doesn't always imply drudgery. Most human lives run the same length, but each of us choose our own path to wander with that time. I doubt my family's simple, (more) earth-friendly lifestyle will leave any more/less legacy than y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'd like to think I do have a concience, and I try to do good for other people, etc, but, really when it comes to thinking of the environment, etc. In all honesty, I have to say no, I really don't give it a 2nd thought.
I was in a discussion with others once..and I guess what was the truth blurted out..
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that it doesn't exist yet. So you pay a manufacturing company to create your drywall sheets for you. When you're done, you're looking at $500,000 in costs. You didn't even save much if anything on the installation over using plasterers, because you had to train the guys on how to do the installation, and they probably need a bunch of specialized
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you who willfully miss the point of intelligent environmentalism make me crazy. It's not about a bunch of damn hippies and their incoherent
Just a half million dollars! (Score:4, Funny)
One small problem (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I hate those things. A bunch of busybody housewives with nothing better to do than to stick their noses in other people's business. I'd rather deal with having a neighbor with a rusted-out trans am in his yard than have to deal with some harpy telling me my grass is 1/4" too long. I own the damn property, I don't need some jackass telling me it has to look exactly like everyone else's.
Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:5, Funny)
And use a secure version of Windows, an honest attorney, or a Hooters franchise that doesn't debase women.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with the rules in my own HOA, just that the managing agent has attempted to apply rules that don't exist (and are most likely from other properities they manage) on several occasions. (namely condo rules and I live in a townhouse.)
I'm involved in my own HOA and run one of the committies, I am looking to get out of my home because I am sick of bein
Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:4, Funny)
Cost savings still a long ways away (Score:3, Informative)
"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."
Still interesting tho.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Payoff down the road (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but betting on future energy prices has always been associated with substantial amounts of risk to principle, just ask any commodities trader about how risky future bets on energy prices can be.
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.
You might not
Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, less is simply more with energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
What is the Energy Payback for PV? [nrel.gov]
Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells [energybulletin.net]
Big deal, I eliminated all utility costs in my (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As will your energy usage!
Quit doubting it based on cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may not be practical to adapt an existing metro area, but would certainly be feasible as part of new housing developments.
(Crap, I just said something to encourage housing developments. I think I'll go wash my brain out with soap.)
Renu by CitizenRe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they're going to sell you what the system generates and you can then resell the excess to the electric company.
A good way to imagine how this works is that they're just like your existing power company, except instead of a huge coal-fired power plant, they're using a distributed power plant that goes on the roofs of all of their customers. It's a completely ingenious system. Not only do they not have to pay for the land the power plant uses, they don't have to pay for the emissions or fuel for th
more efficient to buy hydrogen? (Score:3, Interesting)
This might only be a practical idea in regions where the power company pays you more than the going electric rate for any power you put back into the grid.
Only expensive for now (Score:4, Insightful)
Bloviating...While Losing Money (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
So what is new here?
I guess the "early adopter" price is $0.5M (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
For $500,000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Our green home in Calgary, Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Not very envoronmentally friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
I would suggest that the environmental impact of building this house, and recycling the consumables far outweighs the lowered energy consumption.
Just recycling an estimated 1 ton of toxic, heavy metal, lead a year (assuming 10 ton installation with life expectancy of 10 years), has a big environmental impact.
Solar panel manufacturing also consumes a lot of resources, and end up not beeing so clean overall.
A $500,000 investment would probably give a thousand times better ROI if it was spent on pollution reduction in india or china, or to save rainforest.
Fiscal advantages ? (Score:3, Informative)
Are the same kind of dispositions existing in the U.S. ? other coutries ? TFA doesn't say (they're talking about sponsoring, though).
Oh the humanity. (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, you should celebrate a job well done. Have a cigar!
/run
Home Solar Systems - do it right. (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you have any solar system installed while being ON-Grid you will get your own accessable automatic system disconnect to remove you from the grid when the grid goes down to prevent "islanding" (you backfeeding electricty on the grid which could cause a repair lineman to be killed). The elec co's may also put in their own inacessable (to you) automatic disconnect which they then charge you rental fees on in most cases.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many ways to do this, and whole communities that do this on a fairly freuqent basis in the US and Canada that I know of. Whole households can easily be powered by a small stream with enough drop or "head" to push a small hydroelectric generator. Heck, you can build one of these setups easily w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then 90% of it would have been misappropriated and used for personal projects of the administrators, and the other 10% would have gone to people who didn't really need it, but felt they were entitled to it.
Consider this an investment in science. It's expensive, and rarely pays out immediately. They probably learned quite a bit about how to manufacture and install these items through the mistakes found in the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To those calling this a "stupid pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't dump half a million into a project only to have the solar cells facing away from the sun.
Re:Sounds great... (Score:5, Informative)
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't RTFA.
First of all, there is much, much, more to this system than the panels.
Second, even the article concedes that this solution is significantly more expensive than the costs of energy consumption it is replacing in a worst case comparison. Learn, think, and then speak. Not the other way around please.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anybody got any insulation studies? (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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