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.'"
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:DAMMIT! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Payoff down the road (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:1, Informative)
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:1, Informative)
1. The energy that a solar panel converts from the sun's rays will exceed the energy used in making and later disposing of the panel.
2. The chemicals used in producing solar panels are a very serious environmental hazard.
3. As has been noted, the cost of solar panels exceeds the cost of purchasing energy because mass centralized energy production will always be more efficient than decentralized home-by-home production (due to the extreme efficiency of high-voltage transmission and large power plants).
4. Implementing low-energy appliance standards across the world, requiring increased insulation in homes, and a move to high-efficiency automobiles will have a substantially greater environmental benefit than solar panel use.
Solar panels do not "produce" any energy, nor are the particularly efficient in converting the sun's energy into electricity or hot water. They are best used in areas where electricity is not readily available.
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (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 expand operations).
I pay an average of $150/month for electricity, $50/month for natural gas, and $200/month for gasoline. That's $4,800 per year in energy costs. So even if this guy's solar house could provide all of my energy needs, it wouldn't be worth the investment even at the discounted price.
And this doesn't include the maintenance costs of all that stuff. Electrolyzers wear out. Solar panels get broken by hail. Batteries degrade. I wonder what the annualized maintenance costs are? The net annual cost of ownership, including TVM, could be $20,000 a year!
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).
Re:ok but (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:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
-Rick
Interesting step, but not the whole story (Score:1, Informative)
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding over the concept of 'netmetering' and getting money from the utility. Now keep in mind I don't work for an electric company, but I have asked quite a few questions on this subject.
Under next netmetering you will never get a check back from the utility. It's likely even impossible to reduce your electric bill to $0. Why? Most utilities will not let it happen. Under netmetering, the utility has to accept the extra energy you put back into the grid. They are required to reduce your bill to by the equal amount you put back. Notice I say reduce the bill. Under net metering, if you produce more energy than used, the utility gets to keep the excess energy for free and sell it back to consumers for a profit. They will only credit you to the point where your bill reaches zero. The net metering rules do not require them to compensate you for any more than that. As for bringing your bill to zero - it may show your electrical use as 0, but they can still charge their connection fees, etc.
Now I say most utilities because I have come across one that is willing to purchase excess electricity at wholesale rates. They are the exception because it its a very unique small town where all the utilities are city owned. It is the city of Ellensburg, Washington. The city is amazing to work with. In October they finished construction of a publically owned solar array. For $1,200 per kilowatt, the city has residents to buy into their array, and help expand it. That is CHEAP! So far it's in the 50KW range, but has many acres to expand. The city will cover all insurance and maintenance for 25 years, and will deduct the amount from your bill. They do all the work and you get all the benefits. If only the utilities worked as easy.
I was told by an energy efficiency agent from Seattle City Light, that the utility sees private solar & customers who generate their own power as competition, and won't help with any suggestions or ideas on PV arrays. I'm leading a project with my company to put up a 10kw array. The cost is $93,000. Factor in the 30% Federal tax rebate, and 5 year accelerated depreciation for businesses, that cost is closer to $60K. When all is said and done, the array will pay for itself in 7 years. Mind you that is in Seattle. The payoff is much quicker in Arizona or California.
Re:Sounds great... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Renu by CitizenRe (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 the system. And since they're locking in your electric rates, you save money in the long run!
Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anybody got any insulation studies? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks (Score:1, Informative)
People in condos aren't protected though, not that they have many environmental options anyway.
Re:If I were a New Jersey Taxpayer... (Score:3, Informative)
To those calling this a "stupid project" and does not show anything new, or even worthwhile, you are wrong. While this may seem to you like a crazy geek project by someone who could afford it himself, I see it as a proof of concept. Not just the solar bit, but the hydrogen piece as well. Not too many people with solar panels on their roof are also producing their own hydrogen, not only for energy storage, but to run his hydrogen fuel cell car. If this guy is successful in creating this concept, and people show a genuine interest in this kind of energy production, then much good will come. Costs will definitely drop once demand goes up and the economies of scale kick in. By keeping interest high, more innovations in this technology will come about.
I would even suggest a commitee to discuss possible scenarios for doing a mass roll-out of this type of energy. There are a lot of different things to consider, such as distributed or central hydrogen storage, or some kind of compromise of distributed central storage facilities. The fact that this man can run his entire house from the solar panels alone is significant and the publicity for it alone is a step closer to this becoming a reality for everyone.
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:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:2, Informative)
Oh good grief. You can tell that slashdot is full of teenagers and college kids when you can post "Money is teh evil!!!11!!" and get modded +5 insightful.
As another poster already pointed out, money is nothing but a proxy for real resources, so any waste of money is -- in principle -- bad for the environment.
Re:Payoff down the road (Score:3, Informative)
Facts, not FUD (Score:5, Informative)
What is the Energy Payback for PV? [nrel.gov]
Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells [energybulletin.net]
Re:Payoff down the road (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 be so enthusiastic after running the numbers on the various costs and benefits that you are likely to accrue over the lifetime of a solar cell investment. The price of solar cells is dropping yes, but at the same time demand is rising due to the falling costs of production due to technology being reflected in the prices. It is more likely that the cost savings realized through production efficiencies will be mostly or fully balanced out by increases in demand for solar cell installations. The producers will capture most of that surplus for themselves and very little of that savings will make it back to the consumer. The end result will probably be longer term prices stable at current levels or fluctuating in a very narrow and shallow downward range about the current price levels.
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
There is no free lunch as the economists say. You DID pay for the electricity to run that Christmas tree, the only difference is that you paid up front in the form of solar cells instead of paying over time for power from the grid. In effect you are betting that the Present Value [wikipedia.org] of a future stream of payments (i.e. electric bills) is greater than the upfront cost of your solar cell installation which, at current electricity prices, is almost certainly not the case.
Also, if you generate excess electricity, you can sell it to the utility companies, and actually make a buck when you have excess power.
This is true and it would factor into the present value calculation, but unless you live in a very sunny part of the United States, you will probably not realize significant savings by selling power back to the grid. Remember that you are limited by the same state government laws which fix the price of electricity at artificially low levels as the regulated power monopolies. If you think that your extra power will reap a substantial windfall then you may be disappointed. The best you can probably hope for is to offset some of your regular power bills which you will still be paying for on those cloudy days.
People go with solar for different reasons, some of them not financial, but from a purely practical investment standpoint it is very difficult to justify the cost residential solar cells compared to the grid in most parts of the United States (the parts that you would want to live in anyway).
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, 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:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
But you are of course free to think what you like.
Re:I wonder... (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 whats being said.
Re:Slave to the Grid (Score:2, Informative)
I thought you might like this link about interesting times: http://www.noblenet.org/reference/inter.htm [noblenet.org]
-----
Ending global warming one home at a time: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar [jointhesolution.com]
Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? (Score:2, Informative)
And there's no payback?
Re:Insightful? (Score:1, Informative)
For political reaons it is designed to be avoidable for the people who matter politically. Like last time we had an official draft. Stop-loss is not sustainable, so either (a) we change our policies, (b) we accept substantial setbacks in our policies or (c) we find another way to raise troops. Possibly all three.
Last time I checked, the Selective Service system still required all males between 18 and 25 to register. If a draft was an impossiblity, there would be no need for this.
The question is not whether it is possible, but under what circumstances. Protecting vital supplies is perfectly plausible reason to go to war, and if we don't have the men we will draft them.
Whether or not global oil production continues to rise, it will be outpaced by growth from places like China. Being both large, and energy inefficient for our size, our country is vulnerable.
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)
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: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.