Slashdot Log In
Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:29 PM
from the i-have-a-raid-tonight-can-i-borrow-a-cup-of-sunlight dept.
from the i-have-a-raid-tonight-can-i-borrow-a-cup-of-sunlight dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Crunching the Numbers on a Hydrogen Economy 396 comments
mattnyc99 writes "In its new cover story, 'The Truth About Hydrogen,' Popular Mechanics magazine takes a close look at how close the United States is to powering its homes, cars and economy with hydrogen — including a calculation of where all the hydrogen would come from to meet President Bush's demands. Interesting that they break down the future of hydropower not by its advantages but by its challenges: production, storage, distribution and use."
[+]
Hardware: Hydrogen Won't Save Our Economy 723 comments
anaesthetica writes "Physorg.com is featuring a story asserting that hydrogen is economically infeasible as a replacement for our current energy sources. The premise is that isolating and converting hydrogen into a usable energy source takes up a great deal of energy to begin with, and that subsequently converting that hydrogen fuel into usable energy results in an overall efficiency of only about 25%. Apparently, the increasing scarcity of water is going to make hydrogen too costly and just as politicized as oil." From the article: "[Fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel's] overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense. The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
-Rick
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Somewhere in the world there's going to be a reddish explosion on the horizon...
Parent
One small problem (Score:5, Funny)
Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Facts, not FUD (Score:5, Informative)
What is the Energy Payback for PV? [nrel.gov]
Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells [energybulletin.net]
Parent
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.
Renu by CitizenRe (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Oh the humanity. (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, you should celebrate a job well done. Have a cigar!
/run
Re:DAMMIT! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
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...
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Sounds great... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent