|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > October 2005 > Re: Daryl Hannah - Living off grid
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Daryl Hannah - Living off grid
|
|
| the seventh sign 2005-09-24, 11:21 am |
| sparky wrote:
> When she has been off grid more than 5 years I let me know.
>
Why wait for five years when you can read about it from people who
started doing it 10 years ago?
solarhouse.com
TSS
| |
|
| the seventh sign wrote:
> sparky wrote:
>
> Why wait for five years when you can read about it from people who
> started doing it 10 years ago?
>
>
> solarhouse.com
From what I see, this design is quite dependent on the grid as it's virtual
"capacitor".
| |
| the seventh sign 2005-09-25, 5:21 am |
| JohnH wrote:
> the seventh sign wrote:
>
> From what I see, this design is quite dependent on the grid as it's virtual
> "capacitor".
You missed their survival story during the ice storm a few years ago.
Their house was one of the only houses with power during that time. They
are selling their excess power back to the power company via metering.
Ask them about it it is truly and interesting story.
TSS
| |
| Chris W 2005-09-25, 12:21 pm |
| the seventh sign wrote:
> JohnH wrote:
>
>
>
> You missed their survival story during the ice storm a few years ago.
> Their house was one of the only houses with power during that time.
> They are selling their excess power back to the power company via
> metering.
>
> Ask them about it it is truly and interesting story.
I read the part about the cost. They didn't really do the math on that
one. If you pay cash for solar electric panels it will take 20 years or
more for them to pay for them self. If, as they did, you pay interest
on them for 30 years, the cost is even greater. So unless the price of
electricity goes up a lot higher it won't be worth it for a VERY long
time, and then only if they last that long. I think the sun tracking
parabolic mirror dishes with the stirling engine the center running a
generator may be a much better solution if they every scale them done
some what, mass produce them, and sell them to the public.
On the other hand my calculations for solar heating panels shows that it
is well worth it and will pay for them self a lot quicker. You get more
energy per sq ft of solar heating panels and the cost much less per sq
ft than than the electric panels. Add to that the fact that radiant
floor heating in a well insulated house is very a efficient way to heat
your house, it makes me wonder why more people don't use solar for heat.
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-25, 1:21 pm |
| Chris W wrote:
....
> I read the part about the cost. They didn't really do the math on that
> one. If you pay cash for solar electric panels it will take 20 years or
> more for them to pay for them self.
....
Funny how people don't seem to apply the same standard to
houses, pools, cars or other big ticket items. Just how
long does it take for a car to pay for itself?
Not everything in the world is about the money.
Anthony
| |
|
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NK6dndJ3aJazUaveRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Chris W wrote:
> ...
> ...
>
> Funny how people don't seem to apply the same standard to
> houses, pools, cars or other big ticket items. Just how
> long does it take for a car to pay for itself?
>
> Not everything in the world is about the money.
>
> Anthony
Here in California, they will pay people who install a PV system
as much as $3 a watt, or up to half the system cost. For a solar water
heater they pay up to $750, but no more than half the cost. They pay
nothing for pool heaters or solar thermal to heat homes.
Considering California imports about 80% of its natural gas and
most of the home heating is natural gas, you would think they would
buy down home heating. I would imagine you could convince them
to buy down the cost of solar home heating, but it is not now on their list.
| |
| The Tagge's 2005-09-25, 6:21 pm |
| OK, well look upon it as a question of independence.
How many dollars would you have to invest in stock of your electricity
provider to receive sufficient dividends to pay your electric bill? Oh, and
remember that it need to be after tax dollars.
It seems to me that one could say that they are independent if either they
invested enough in the public provider, or in their own power plant.
"Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iMyZe.6455$GK2.6239@lakeread07...
> the seventh sign wrote:
>
>
> I read the part about the cost. They didn't really do the math on that
> one. If you pay cash for solar electric panels it will take 20 years or
> more for them to pay for them self. If, as they did, you pay interest on
> them for 30 years, the cost is even greater. So unless the price of
> electricity goes up a lot higher it won't be worth it for a VERY long
> time, and then only if they last that long. I think the sun tracking
> parabolic mirror dishes with the stirling engine the center running a
> generator may be a much better solution if they every scale them done some
> what, mass produce them, and sell them to the public.
>
> On the other hand my calculations for solar heating panels shows that it
> is well worth it and will pay for them self a lot quicker. You get more
> energy per sq ft of solar heating panels and the cost much less per sq ft
> than than the electric panels. Add to that the fact that radiant floor
> heating in a well insulated house is very a efficient way to heat your
> house, it makes me wonder why more people don't use solar for heat.
>
>
> --
> Chris W
>
> Gift Giving Made Easy
> Get the gifts you want & give the gifts they want
> One stop wish list for any gift, from anywhere, for any occasion!
> http://thewishzone.com
| |
| Chris W 2005-09-25, 11:21 pm |
| The Tagge's wrote:
>OK, well look upon it as a question of independence.
>How many dollars would you have to invest in stock of your electricity
>provider to receive sufficient dividends to pay your electric bill? Oh, and
>remember that it need to be after tax dollars.
>It seems to me that one could say that they are independent if either they
>invested enough in the public provider, or in their own power plant.
>
>
For that I would run a diesel engine generator on biodiesel that I make
myself for $0.50/gal. That comes to about $0.08/kWh plus the price of
the generator which is only $3,000. On top of that I get very cheap
fuel to drive all I want. Scale it up some and share with 4 or 5
neighbors and the cost per kWh goes down even more.
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-25, 11:21 pm |
| Chris W wrote:
> The Tagge's wrote:
>
> For that I would run a diesel engine generator on biodiesel that I make
> myself for $0.50/gal. That comes to about $0.08/kWh plus the price of
> the generator which is only $3,000. On top of that I get very cheap
> fuel to drive all I want. Scale it up some and share with 4 or 5
> neighbors and the cost per kWh goes down even more.
>
>
>
This is the route we took. A Detroit Diesel running WVO. After
forecasting maintenance costs, adding in purchase price, and doing some
service life guestimating, It looks like about $0.04 / kWh .....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SteveF 2005-09-26, 12:21 am |
|
[snip]
>
> On the other hand my calculations for solar heating panels shows that it
> is well worth it and will pay for them self a lot quicker. You get more
> energy per sq ft of solar heating panels and the cost much less per sq ft
> than than the electric panels. Add to that the fact that radiant floor
> heating in a well insulated house is very a efficient way to heat your
> house, it makes me wonder why more people don't use solar for heat.
>
>
> --
> Chris W
>
Because the problem with solar heating is that you get the least amount of
heat out of the system during the times of the year when it is needed most.
I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well insulated (for
central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant floor heating
system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my solar
collectors produce zero heat. Plus I will still need some sort of air
conditioning system to handle the summer cooling and dehumidification needs.
Which means the building would need three separate HVAC components. Another
option under consideration is a ground sourced heat pump to perform the
heating and cooling and then hook up the solar collectors to the radiant
floor tubes to let the sun chip in when it can. From a cost benefit and
complexity standpoint, no home builder in their right mind would want to
mess with this.
Steve.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-26, 12:21 am |
| This is exactly what I am considering right now. How many toys do we want to
play with for the bucks in our pockets.
"SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:P4JZe.71825$SL.1490672@twister.southeast.rr.com...
[snip]
>
> On the other hand my calculations for solar heating panels shows that it
> is well worth it and will pay for them self a lot quicker. You get more
> energy per sq ft of solar heating panels and the cost much less per sq ft
> than than the electric panels. Add to that the fact that radiant floor
> heating in a well insulated house is very a efficient way to heat your
> house, it makes me wonder why more people don't use solar for heat.
>
>
> --
> Chris W
>
Because the problem with solar heating is that you get the least amount of
heat out of the system during the times of the year when it is needed most.
I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well insulated (for
central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant floor heating
system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my solar
collectors produce zero heat. Plus I will still need some sort of air
conditioning system to handle the summer cooling and dehumidification needs.
Which means the building would need three separate HVAC components. Another
option under consideration is a ground sourced heat pump to perform the
heating and cooling and then hook up the solar collectors to the radiant
floor tubes to let the sun chip in when it can. From a cost benefit and
complexity standpoint, no home builder in their right mind would want to
mess with this.
Steve.
| |
| the seventh sign 2005-09-26, 6:21 am |
| Chris W wrote:
> The Tagge's wrote:
>
> For that I would run a diesel engine generator on biodiesel that I make
> myself for $0.50/gal. That comes to about $0.08/kWh plus the price of
> the generator which is only $3,000. On top of that I get very cheap
> fuel to drive all I want. Scale it up some and share with 4 or 5
> neighbors and the cost per kWh goes down even more.
Then you don't get their idea of less-polluting ways to live off the grid.
They reduced their use of oil and gas by doing what they are doing.
It is a different path a path less traveled. reduce your dependency on
oil & gas while you can.
TSS
| |
|
|
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J9qdnUI6mIvq-KreRVn-rg@golden.net...
> This is exactly what I am considering right now. How many toys do we want
to
> play with for the bucks in our pockets.
>
> "SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:P4JZe.71825$SL.1490672@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>
> [snip]
ft[color=darkred]
>
> Because the problem with solar heating
> is that you get the least amount of
> heat out of the system during the times
> of the year when it is needed most.
That is where low temperature radiant floor heating, large water thermal
storage, and heavy to superinsulation comes in.
> I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well insulated
(for
> central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant floor heating
> system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
> figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
> case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my
solar
> collectors produce zero heat.
Use backup boiler which can also backup your DHW.
> Plus I will still need some sort of air
> conditioning system to handle the summer
> cooling and dehumidification needs.
> Which means the building would need three
> separate HVAC components.
The solar/radiant floor/DHW can be integrated. a/c stand alone, but have a
control interlock to switch off the floor when the a/c is on and vice versa.
Hve both manully switch on, not auto between the two, as the a/c may at
times be cooling what you have just heated up.
> Another option under consideration is a ground
> sourced heat pump to perform the
> heating and cooling and then hook up the solar collectors to the radiant
> floor tubes to let the sun chip in when it can.
Best store the heat in a large thermal store. If the whole roof was covered
in solar panels, you may get most of your radiant floor heating via the
solar panels. The thermal store can also act as a DHW preheat if the water
is not hot enough for DHW purposes. You need to think it out. Look at this
house for ideas:
http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.html
> From a cost benefit and
> complexity standpoint, no home builder in their right mind would want to
> mess with this.
>
> Steve.
| |
| SteveF 2005-09-26, 8:21 am |
|
Right, that's my point about why this isn't done much. Covering the roof
with solar collectors would be extremely expensive (and this is a shop where
I don't need hot water so I'm just going to cover the collectors each May)
Same with heavy insulation, according the calculations I've done going from
R22 to R26 in the walls would save 10 gallons of heating oil yearly but cost
$500 in insulation boards plus another maybe $300 to $500 in labor costs.
Unless your thermal mass is big enough to carry heat from the fall, you
still have to deal with the fact that the solar collectors are basically
useless for 2/3 of the day during January and less than that for the month
due to cloudy days.
I agree that solar heat and a really large thermal mass *could* provide
almost all the heat energy for my shop, simply pointing out that the payback
period calculation would be laughable which is why this isn't considered for
most houses.
Steve.
>
> That is where low temperature radiant floor heating, large water thermal
> storage, and heavy to superinsulation comes in.
>
> (for
> solar
>
> Use backup boiler which can also backup your DHW.
>
>
> The solar/radiant floor/DHW can be integrated. a/c stand alone, but have
> a
> control interlock to switch off the floor when the a/c is on and vice
> versa.
> Hve both manully switch on, not auto between the two, as the a/c may at
> times be cooling what you have just heated up.
>
>
> Best store the heat in a large thermal store. If the whole roof was
> covered
> in solar panels, you may get most of your radiant floor heating via the
> solar panels. The thermal store can also act as a DHW preheat if the water
> is not hot enough for DHW purposes. You need to think it out. Look at
> this
> house for ideas:
> http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.html
>
>
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-26, 9:21 am |
| http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.html
When I read articles like this I get totally turned off and think these guys
are total scammers...
Some excerpts:
"That investment pays off big. In fact, it begins to payoff the moment the
system is activated, using free fuel from the sun to heat and power your
living needs"
"your costs will never increase. The cost of energy to power your home will
be $00.00/year - FOREVER!"
"The value of the system does not deteriorate"
Hmm, you mean I can now buy solar cells that never degrade over time? I
will never have to replace my batteries? My electronic inverters will never
fail? A 30+ year payback on PV hardware is cheaper than leasing a car?
So I figure 1 of 2 things can be going on here; 1. they are scammers trying
to rip off a bunch of farmers, or 2. they failed grade school math and high
school economics.
It's still cheaper to buy electricity at $0.12/kWhr (delivered to my door
including surcharges and taxes) than to make it at $0.20 to $0.50/kWhr for
wind/solar.
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4337bf41$0$88081$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:J9qdnUI6mIvq-KreRVn-rg@golden.net...
want[color=darkred]
> to
it[color=darkred]
more[color=darkred]
> ft
floor[color=darkred]
>
> That is where low temperature radiant floor heating, large water thermal
> storage, and heavy to superinsulation comes in.
>
> (for
in[color=darkred]
> solar
>
> Use backup boiler which can also backup your DHW.
>
>
> The solar/radiant floor/DHW can be integrated. a/c stand alone, but have
a
> control interlock to switch off the floor when the a/c is on and vice
versa.
> Hve both manully switch on, not auto between the two, as the a/c may at
> times be cooling what you have just heated up.
>
>
> Best store the heat in a large thermal store. If the whole roof was
covered
> in solar panels, you may get most of your radiant floor heating via the
> solar panels. The thermal store can also act as a DHW preheat if the water
> is not hot enough for DHW purposes. You need to think it out. Look at
this
> house for ideas:
> http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.html
>
>
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-26, 11:21 am |
| SteveF wrote:
>
> Because the problem with solar heating is that you get the least amount of
> heat out of the system during the times of the year when it is needed
> most.
Then you didn't plan well. Most families require more hot water for showers
and laundry during the summer, so make sure that your solar heat is
available for domestic hot water when you design the system.
> I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well
> insulated (for central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant
> floor heating
> system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
> figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
> case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my
> solar collectors produce zero heat.
If you get enough slope on the collectors that you will have _any_ black
showing, they'll fairly quickly melt the rest of the snow. Folks manage
solar heating around here where 2" of snow isn't even a minor
inconvenience.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-26, 11:21 am |
| the seventh sign wrote:
> Chris W wrote:
>
> Then you don't get their idea of less-polluting ways to live off the grid.
>
> They reduced their use of oil and gas by doing what they are doing.
> It is a different path a path less traveled. reduce your dependency on
> oil & gas while you can.
I guess you don't know what he means by "biodiesel" - ie, _no_ reliance on
oil & gas.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-26, 12:21 pm |
| Nottingham wrote:
> http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.html
>
> When I read articles like this I get totally turned off and think these
> guys are total scammers...
>
> Some excerpts:
> "That investment pays off big. In fact, it begins to payoff the moment
> the system is activated, using free fuel from the sun to heat and power
> your living needs"
>
> "your costs will never increase. The cost of energy to power your home
> will be $00.00/year - FOREVER!"
>
> "The value of the system does not deteriorate"
>
> Hmm, you mean I can now buy solar cells that never degrade over time? I
> will never have to replace my batteries? My electronic inverters will
> never fail?
Of course, you're right.
> A 30+ year payback on PV hardware is cheaper than leasing a car?
30?? Goodness, mine paid for itself on day 1. In any case, that's not the
"payback" time he calculated - that's just how long he amortized it. To
calculate payback time, you need to figure out an amortization period that
will make your PV costs equal to grid-energy costs.
The line I loved was "Array Output for 2004: Here it is: 4.6 mWhr of
electricity from the sun". All those milliwatts are really going to help
out :-)
> It's still cheaper to buy electricity at $0.12/kWhr (delivered to my door
> including surcharges and taxes) than to make it at $0.20 to $0.50/kWhr for
> wind/solar.
If you don't have to pay for the grid connect...
--
derek
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-09-26, 1:21 pm |
| SteveF <none@none.com> wrote:
>...Covering the roof with solar collectors would be extremely expensive...
>Same with heavy insulation...
How about a sunspace? My 14'x96' plastic film tomato greenhouse kits cost
about $700 each, standard labor to put one up in a field (including the
"foundation") is 3 people-1 day.
>Unless your thermal mass is big enough to carry heat from the fall, you
>still have to deal with the fact that the solar collectors are basically
>useless for 2/3 of the day during January and less than that for the month
>due to cloudy days.
Thermal mass (water :-) is cheap, and we don't need seasonal heat storage
below the arctic circle, just enough for a few cloudy days. Cloudy days are
like coin flips. If a building can store enough heat for 1 cloudy day, it
can be 50% solar-heated... 2 days makes 75% max, 3 make 87%, 4 make 93, and
5 make 97% possible, with low-cost materials and serious engineering.
Nick
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-26, 4:21 pm |
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NK6dndJ3aJazUaveRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Chris W wrote:
> ...
> ...
>
> Funny how people don't seem to apply the same standard to
> houses, pools, cars or other big ticket items. Just how
> long does it take for a car to pay for itself?
>
> Not everything in the world is about the money.
>
> Anthony
It is, when you want to live a movie-star lifestyle and still want to be
off-grid. I'm sure it costs a lot more than it saves, so my question is
what does it prove?
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-26, 4:21 pm |
|
"Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XyIZe.6540$GK2.1467@lakeread07...
> The Tagge's wrote:
>
> For that I would run a diesel engine generator on biodiesel that I make
> myself for $0.50/gal. That comes to about $0.08/kWh plus the price of the
> generator which is only $3,000. On top of that I get very cheap fuel to
> drive all I want. Scale it up some and share with 4 or 5 neighbors and
> the cost per kWh goes down even more.
>
"Would" is not "did." If you can do that sustainably, show us how you did
it. Until such time, it's pure speculation.
| |
|
|
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-26, 4:21 pm |
|
"SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:TFQZe.3840$ua.254604@twister.southeast.rr.com...[color=darkred]
>
> Right, that's my point about why this isn't done much. Covering the roof
> with solar collectors would be extremely expensive (and this is a shop
> where I don't need hot water so I'm just going to cover the collectors
> each May) Same with heavy insulation, according the calculations I've done
> going from R22 to R26 in the walls would save 10 gallons of heating oil
> yearly but cost $500 in insulation boards plus another maybe $300 to $500
> in labor costs. Unless your thermal mass is big enough to carry heat from
> the fall, you still have to deal with the fact that the solar collectors
> are basically useless for 2/3 of the day during January and less than that
> for the month due to cloudy days.
>
> I agree that solar heat and a really large thermal mass *could* provide
> almost all the heat energy for my shop, simply pointing out that the
> payback period calculation would be laughable which is why this isn't
> considered for most houses.
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
I haven't seen many turn-key alternate energy systems that would work
properly for the novice user. It's people like us, who know how to
troubleshoot a charge controller, and don't panic when a storage battery
starts to catch fire, who mostly dabble with such things. I think we have a
long way to go before the public at large has a desire to buy into this
technology.
| |
| Chris W 2005-09-26, 5:21 pm |
| SteveF wrote:
>Because the problem with solar heating is that you get the least amount of
>heat out of the system during the times of the year when it is needed most.
>I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well insulated (for
>central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant floor heating
>system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
>figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
>case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my solar
>collectors produce zero heat.
>
A back up boiler of some kind is not complicated to add to a solar
heating system. If you are putting it in new construction you can
remove a few feet of dirt, lay down insulation, put the dirt back in,
then lay the foundation over that. This gives a huge thermal store for
times when the sun isn't shining. If you get snow covering your solar
panels it is a simple matter to pump hot water from the back up boiler
through the solar panels and melt the snow in no time. However, this
brings up the simple fact that energy sources such as solar and wind
have to be implemented based on geography. Some places get a lot more
solar radiation, some get a lot more wind, and some gets lots of both.
In CO, UT, OK, KS, TX, NV, CA and NM there is a great deal of solar
energy to take advantage of. Solar heating via radiant floor heating is
efficient enough to be a huge contribution in many more places. Solar
heating panels collect 5 times more energy per unit area than PV panels
and are much cheaper to boot. As for wind there are pockets scattered
all over the US where wind power makes good sense, They aren't near as
big as the areas where solar is the high though. Where I live I could
heat my house almost entirely from solar. Needing a back up probably
less than 7 days out of the year. The only reason I say "COULD heat my
house", and not DO, is because I don't currently own a home, but when I
do I can assure it will be heated with solar radiant floor heating.
Summer is obviously when there is the most solar radiation and the least
need for it since all you really need to heat in the summer is your
water. However if someone would design an efficient stirling engine
that is designed to work on the temperature differential a solar heating
system can provide, you could use that heat to generate a fair amount of
electricity. It is my understanding that such a system could generate
almost double the electricity that PV panels give you. However the only
application I know about is by using parabolic mirror dishes to get a
huge heat differential to run a stirling engine. You can run a stirling
engine and still use the heat you generate to run it to heat your house
or water or whatever. You don't loose any heat in the process either.
However I do believe it is a little more difficult to transfer the heat
to where you want it with a stirling engine in the loop but not a lot.
>Plus I will still need some sort of air
>conditioning system
>
Air conditioning is always completely separate system than radiant floor
heating no mater how you heat the water.
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com
| |
| Chris W 2005-09-26, 6:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
>"SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:TFQZe.3840$ua.254604@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>
>
>I haven't seen many turn-key alternate energy systems that would work
>properly for the novice user. It's people like us, who know how to
>troubleshoot a charge controller, and don't panic when a storage battery
>starts to catch fire, who mostly dabble with such things. I think we have a
>long way to go before the public at large has a desire to buy into this
>technology.
>
>
I think the biggest thing slowing people down from using solar
electricity is cost. If the price of PV panels goes down and or the
price of electricity goes up enough to make it so a solar electric
system would pay for it's self in 5 years or less, I'm sure lots of
people including me would do it. As it stands now, I only plan on using
solar heat. If I lived a few counties west and north of here, where
there is more wind, I would also put in a wind mill to supplement my
electricity. I like the idea of using solar heat and stirling engines
to generate electricity. From what I have read this technology has the
potential to be a much more cost effective way to generate electricity
than using PV panels. If the plans http://www.stirlingenergy.com has
come to pass, I think there is a possibility that a scaled down version
of their dish could be made and sold to individuals at a much lower cost
per kWh of initial investment than PV panels. But I suspect such things
are still several years away.
--
Chris W
Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-09-26, 7:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>"Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Would" is not "did." If you can do that sustainably, show us how you did
>it. Until such time, it's pure speculation.
Responses like this typically come from people who know little about
engineering, as in "OK, Einstein. Sounds good on paper, but have you
exploded an A-bomb yet?" :-)
Nick
| |
|
| SteveF wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
> Because the problem with solar heating is that you get the least amount of
> heat out of the system during the times of the year when it is needed most.
Thats true, but for most areas they still collect a substantial amount
of heat, and have a good payback.
> I'm just breaking ground on a new workshop that will be well insulated (for
> central NC) and plan to install the tubes for a radiant floor heating
> system. I'd like to use solar collectors to heat the water but have to
> figure how to make that work in conjunction with another heating system in
> case we get two inches of snow in January while I'm out of town and my solar
> collectors produce zero heat.
Once you have a conventional radiant floor heating system, adding
solar collectors does not add a lot of complexity -- its not like a
whole new HVAC system. Take a look at this solar radiant floor workshop:
http://www.arttec.net/Solar/BarnHeat.html
Another alternative if you have a good south wall exposure would be
one of these two schemes:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...arn_project.htm
http://www.builditsolar.com/Project...ting/garcol.htm
These system could operate independently of your radiant floor heat to
reduce fuel used.
I use both of them (on separate shops) and they both work very well in
my 8000 degree day climate. At todays fuel prices the payback period
on materials is about a year, and maintenance is low to none.
Plus I will still need some sort of air
> conditioning system to handle the summer cooling and dehumidification needs.
Maybe using as much passive cooling as you can will reduce the need
for AC -- as suggested above this might be a small independent system?
> Which means the building would need three separate HVAC components.
Another
> option under consideration is a ground sourced heat pump to perform the
> heating and cooling and then hook up the solar collectors to the radiant
> floor tubes to let the sun chip in when it can.
I guess GSHP can be good, but when you consider that the electricity
is likely generated at a 30% efficient coal fired power plant, I wonder?
The COP of a solar heater is near infinity :-)
Goold Luck on your shop project.
Gary
From a cost benefit and
> complexity standpoint, no home builder in their right mind would want to
> mess with this.
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
>
--
Gary
www.BuildItSolar.com
gary@BuildItSolar.com
"Build It Yourself" Solar Projects
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-26, 9:21 pm |
| <snip>
[color=darkred]
>30?? Goodness, mine paid for itself on day 1. In any case, that's not the
>"payback" time he calculated - that's just how long he amortized it. To
>calculate payback time, you need to figure out an amortization period that
>will make your PV costs equal to grid-energy costs.
>The line I loved was "Array Output for 2004: Here it is: 4.6 mWhr of
>electricity from the sun". All those milliwatts are really going to help
>out :-)
How do you figure it paid for itself in 1 day? Grid not available to you?
Yah, 4.6mWhr would be great for trickle charging my lawnmower battery. ;-)
<snip>
door[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
>
> If you don't have to pay for the grid connect...
> --
> derek
That's factored in already. The supposed energy cost is ~$0.05/kWHr +
connection charge + delivery + metering charge + debt retirement + bend over
tax (GST) =~ $0.12/kWHr
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
> "Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> It is, when you want to live a movie-star lifestyle and still want to be
> off-grid. I'm sure it costs a lot more than it saves, so my question is
> what does it prove?
What does it have to prove? Does it have to prove something to you?
Is it not enough that they seem to like it?
Anthony
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-26, 10:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
....
> I haven't seen many turn-key alternate energy systems that would work
> properly for the novice user. It's people like us, who know how to
> troubleshoot a charge controller, and don't panic when a storage battery
> starts to catch fire, who mostly dabble with such things. I think we have a
> long way to go before the public at large has a desire to buy into this
> technology.
There are a lot of turn-key alternate energy systems out there.
If you haven't seen them then you haven't looked. They do tend
to cost a bit of money though so it's cheaper to do it yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...+system&spell=1
Anthony
| |
|
|
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dh9ps9$e6e@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> JoeSixPack <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Responses like this typically come from people who know little about
> engineering, as in "OK, Einstein. Sounds good on paper, but have you
> exploded an A-bomb yet?" :-)
>
> Nick
>
LOL Nick. Good one 
| |
|
|
"Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NYYZe.6623$GK2.3746@lakeread07...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> I think the biggest thing slowing people down from using solar electricity
> is cost. If the price of PV panels goes down and or the price of
> electricity goes up enough to make it so a solar electric system would pay
> for it's self in 5 years or less, I'm sure lots of people including me
> would do it. As it stands now, I only plan on using solar heat. If I
> lived a few counties west and north of here, where there is more wind, I
> would also put in a wind mill to supplement my electricity. I like the
> idea of using solar heat and stirling engines to generate electricity.
> From what I have read this technology has the potential to be a much more
> cost effective way to generate electricity than using PV panels. If the
> plans http://www.stirlingenergy.com has come to pass, I think there is a
> possibility that a scaled down version of their dish could be made and
> sold to individuals at a much lower cost per kWh of initial investment
> than PV panels. But I suspect such things are still several years away.
>
> --
> Chris W
>
> Gift Giving Made Easy
> Get the gifts you want & give the gifts they want
> One stop wish list for any gift, from anywhere, for any occasion!
> http://thewishzone.com
One of the really good ideas is CHP. Combined Heat and Power
can generate enough power to pay for the heat. A Stirling or turbine
could be almost efficient enough to give you enough Netmetering
credits to offset the cost of the natural gas. Your house is heated
from the rejected heat from the heat engine.
| |
| Pete C. 2005-09-27, 12:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
<snipped>
> Just how long does it take for a car to pay for itself?
Um, when it enables you to get to work and make a decent income, payback
would typically be <1yr.
Pete C.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-27, 10:21 am |
| Nottingham wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> How do you figure it paid for itself in 1 day? Grid not available to you?
Available - but at the cost of my off-grid installation.
>
> Yah, 4.6mWhr would be great for trickle charging my lawnmower battery. ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
> door
> for
>
> That's factored in already. The supposed energy cost is ~$0.05/kWHr +
> connection charge + delivery + metering charge + debt retirement + bend
> over tax (GST) =~ $0.12/kWHr
No, it's not. Grid connections are extra. You are paying $0.12/kWHr, but
the cost of connecting got figured into the cost of the home for the
original owner - it was never part of the utility's calculation. Delivery,
metering, debt retirement and bend over tax (I like that) _are_ part of the
utility's charge.
--
derek
| |
| SteveF 2005-09-27, 11:21 am |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:3mrn03-ql9.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Nottingham wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Available - but at the cost of my off-grid installation.
> --
> derek
I'm curious about where you live. In North Carolina the utility hooks up a
new residence for free.
Steve.
| |
| R.H. Allen 2005-09-27, 11:21 am |
| Chris W wrote:
> I think the biggest thing slowing people down from using solar
> electricity is cost. If the price of PV panels goes down and or the
> price of electricity goes up enough to make it so a solar electric
> system would pay for it's self in 5 years or less, I'm sure lots of
> people including me would do it.
If you get the payback time down to 5 years with PV panels that last 30
years, you're talking electricity for less than $0.02/kWh. The payback
time doesn't need to be nearly that short to make it competitive with
retail power from the grid. I think people become very interested when
the payback time drops to 20-30 years, which subsidies in some locations
are already showing us is the case (though with some subsidies, the
payback time can drop to about 10 years).
> As it stands now, I only plan on using
> solar heat. If I lived a few counties west and north of here, where
> there is more wind, I would also put in a wind mill to supplement my
> electricity. I like the idea of using solar heat and stirling engines
> to generate electricity. From what I have read this technology has the
> potential to be a much more cost effective way to generate electricity
> than using PV panels.
Maybe. One of the problems with their comparison is that they're
typically comparing stirling engine efficiencies to flat-plat PV
efficiencies, which really is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Stirling engines rely on concentrated sunlight, with all of the
advantages (e.g., higher efficiency) and liabilities (e.g., only works
with direct sunlight) of concentrating PV, so it should really be
compared to concentrating PV, which can have efficiencies approaching
those of stirling engines.
Finally, even if it *does* become more cost-effective than PV, it will
only be so for areas that are relatively free of cloud cover. Stirling
engines, as I said, require direct sunlight, whereas flat-plate
non-concentrating PV still works in the presence of clouds.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-27, 11:21 am |
| SteveF wrote:
>
> I'm curious about where you live. In North Carolina the utility hooks up a
> new residence for free.
>
> Steve.
>
>
In NY they don't if you live beyond the power lines. It would cost $15k
for us to have lines brought down our road.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SteveF 2005-09-27, 11:21 am |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:a25l03-s59.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> SteveF wrote:
>
>
> Then you didn't plan well. Most families require more hot water for
> showers
> and laundry during the summer, so make sure that your solar heat is
> available for domestic hot water when you design the system.
>
How did I not plan well for the fact that the coldest temperatures and the
least amount of solar energy occur at the same time of year? Don't know
about most families but my wife and I take showers and do laundry year
'round. Also, this is for a workshop where there is no need for hot water.
>
> If you get enough slope on the collectors that you will have _any_ black
> showing, they'll fairly quickly melt the rest of the snow. Folks manage
> solar heating around here where 2" of snow isn't even a minor
> inconvenience.
> --
> derek
OK, how about heavy cloud cover for 5 days? The point is that an additional
system is needed. Even the Solar House at NCSU which was designed as a
solar demonstration project has a backup system. My shop will have around
$25K of machinery so running the risk of the heating system not doing its
job is not an option.
How about listing the equipment you've got on your house and how well each
component is working so I can see if I'm on the right track.
Steve.
| |
| R.H. Allen 2005-09-27, 11:21 am |
| Pete C. wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> Um, when it enables you to get to work and make a decent income, payback
> would typically be <1yr.
Unless public transit is available, or it would cost less than the car
to move to a place within walking or bicycling distance of work, or it
would cost less than the car to find a new job within walking or
bicycling distance of home. Under any of those circumstances, payback
for the car would be longer than the life of the car.
Of course, there are any number of other purposes that could enhance the
value of the car and, hence, shorten the payback period, but good luck
finding universal agreement on what those purposes might be and how much
they might be worth.
The original point (now snipped) being, as I recall, that not everything
comes down to money. Or perhaps more accurately, that all of us assign
value to material goods on different bases. Some people are willing to
pay a premium to generate their electricity on-site from renewable
sources. Some people are willing to pay a premium for a large vehicle
and (implicitly) accept the financial risk associated with low gas
mileage and volatile gas prices. Some people are willing to pay $100 for
a beanie baby or a baseball card.
Since electricity and heat are fungible, it's easy to focus on payback
time for renewable energy systems. However, detractors often miss the
fact that these systems have value for their owners beyond the energy
produced (and that's without even attempting to get into the thorny
question of the economic value of the reduced emissions associated with
the systems).
| |
| Ecnerwal 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
| In article <QKb_e.7052$yl.2266@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote:
> I'm curious about where you live. In North Carolina the utility hooks up a
> new residence for free.
How far?
This varies, a lot. Part of it depends on where the main power lines
are, and part of it depends on (generally) what the public utilities
commission makes the power company do. In Maine, last I recall, 300 feet
was free, and there were some other deals on getting the main line
extended if there were at least 3 customers on the road. After that,
expensive.
In Vermont, the PUC is clearly more in the grip of the power companies,
as only 100 feet of wire from the pole is free, and you have to pay the
power company $365 to even find out how much it will cost to connect. It
takes a remarkably small amount of driveway to make off-grid the
economically sensible choice in Vermont...
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:29:37 GMT, Ecnerwal
<LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>In article <QKb_e.7052$yl.2266@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>How far?
>
>This varies, a lot.
Of course. My parents built some 10 years ago and their lot is accessible
through their private road off a main street. Although power was going
right by the private drive, they needed power back 750' to the new house.
The power company would give them either 100 or 150' (I forget) and after
that, they were on their own. They had to buy 1 pole and a transformer,
then bury the rest to the house. It wasn't cheap, but was certainly
cheaper than going off grid.
| |
| wmbjk 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:29:37 GMT, Ecnerwal
<LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>In article <QKb_e.7052$yl.2266@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> "SteveF" <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>How far?
>
>This varies, a lot. Part of it depends on where the main power lines
>are, and part of it depends on (generally) what the public utilities
>commission makes the power company do. In Maine, last I recall, 300 feet
>was free, and there were some other deals on getting the main line
>extended if there were at least 3 customers on the road. After that,
>expensive.
>
>In Vermont, the PUC is clearly more in the grip of the power companies,
>as only 100 feet of wire from the pole is free, and you have to pay the
>power company $365 to even find out how much it will cost to connect. It
>takes a remarkably small amount of driveway to make off-grid the
>economically sensible choice in Vermont...
A friend recently inquired about extending the grid slightly over a
mile to his property in NW AZ. The initial estimate was $80k. If he
were to pay the money, in a few years there would likely be someone on
or near the route of the new wires telling us - "in AZ, they hook you
up for free". :-)
Wayne
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
| Mark wrote:
> Of course. My parents built some 10 years ago and their lot is accessible
> through their private road off a main street. Although power was going
> right by the private drive, they needed power back 750' to the new house.
>
> The power company would give them either 100 or 150' (I forget) and after
> that, they were on their own. They had to buy 1 pole and a transformer,
> then bury the rest to the house. It wasn't cheap, but was certainly
> cheaper than going off grid.
Even considering a lifetime of utility bills?
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:I5ydnSZGhpDOCqXeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> What does it have to prove? Does it have to prove something to you?
> Is it not enough that they seem to like it?
>
> Anthony
I think they like to seem to be proving something.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
|
"R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n4qdncM4IqHGzaTeRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> Unless public transit is available, or it would cost less than the car to
> move to a place within walking or bicycling distance of work, or it would
> cost less than the car to find a new job within walking or bicycling
> distance of home. Under any of those circumstances, payback for the car
> would be longer than the life of the car.
>
> Of course, there are any number of other purposes that could enhance the
> value of the car and, hence, shorten the payback period, but good luck
> finding universal agreement on what those purposes might be and how much
> they might be worth.
>
> The original point (now snipped) being, as I recall, that not everything
> comes down to money. Or perhaps more accurately, that all of us assign
> value to material goods on different bases. Some people are willing to pay
> a premium to generate their electricity on-site from renewable sources.
> Some people are willing to pay a premium for a large vehicle and
> (implicitly) accept the financial risk associated with low gas mileage and
> volatile gas prices. Some people are willing to pay $100 for a beanie baby
> or a baseball card.
>
> Since electricity and heat are fungible, it's easy to focus on payback
> time for renewable energy systems. However, detractors often miss the fact
> that these systems have value for their owners beyond the energy produced
> (and that's without even attempting to get into the thorny question of the
> economic value of the reduced emissions associated with the systems).
"See? It works."
All you need is a few million in the bank so you can pay for everything to
keep working.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:TiXZe.2386$dl2.872@fe08.lga...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> I did, and did. Still asking the same questions?
Perfect. Now tell us how everyone can do it for the same costs you claim.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
|
"Paul" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Nj2_e.9096$kH3.4268@trnddc01...
>
> <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
> news:dh9ps9$e6e@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> LOL Nick. Good one
>
Yeah, accountability is for eggheads, not real people.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 12:21 pm |
|
"Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NYYZe.6623$GK2.3746@lakeread07...
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>
> I think the biggest thing slowing people down from using solar electricity
> is cost. If the price of PV panels goes down and or the price of
> electricity goes up enough to make it so a solar electric system would pay
> for it's self in 5 years or less, I'm sure lots of people including me
> would do it. As it stands now, I only plan on using solar heat. If I
> lived a few counties west and north of here, where there is more wind, I
> would also put in a wind mill to supplement my electricity. I like the
> idea of using solar heat and stirling engines to generate electricity.
> From what I have read this technology has the potential to be a much more
> cost effective way to generate electricity than using PV panels. If the
> plans http://www.stirlingenergy.com has come to pass, I think there is a
> possibility that a scaled down version of their dish could be made and
> sold to individuals at a much lower cost per kWh of initial investment
> than PV panels. But I suspect such things are still several years away.
>
> --
> Chris W
That's the real world kicking in. The difference between a pragmatist and a
dreamer, is that a pragmatist wants to know how it can be made to work
sustainable. A dreamer, says "what's your problem? Let's just spend whatever
it costs."
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2005-09-27, 1:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack wrote:
> "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n4qdncM4IqHGzaTeRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> "See? It works."
> All you need is a few million in the bank so you can pay for everything to
> keep working.
>
>
How about less than $10k for the complete heat and electric system, and
less than $400 / year in "maintenance" ......
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-27, 1:21 pm |
|
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:l8mij1t38af20u2kv2l3i873agkak4r9ds@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:29:37 GMT, Ecnerwal
> <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>
>
> A friend recently inquired about extending the grid slightly over a
> mile to his property in NW AZ. The initial estimate was $80k. If he
> were to pay the money, in a few years there would likely be someone on
> or near the route of the new wires telling us - "in AZ, they hook you
> up for free". :-)
>
> Wayne
If the power companies cared to look at the slightly bigger picture, they
would gain a lot more customers is they hooked up new customers for free and
factored the cost over the whole grid. Nowadays, for the consumer, the
off-grid options are good enough to consider warranting the expense,
compared to a costly line extension to the grid.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:19:58 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net>
wrote:
>
>If the power companies cared to look at the slightly bigger picture, they
>would gain a lot more customers is they hooked up new customers for free and
>factored the cost over the whole grid.
Most utilities live with public-interest oversight. Apparently they've
studied the issue, and by and large provide only a few hundred feet
for free. If you think they could make more money by giving out free
line extensions, I invite you to offer up some analysis. Start by
considering the case of our local power company, which serves an area
with tens of thousands of unoccupied 40 acre parcels, with
developments oft times miles distant from the grid, and with
government owned (permanently unoccupied) land in between. Think of
upgrading existing lines for additional capacity, then extending 10
miles, then providing an average of perhaps an additional 4000 feet
per subscriber. Throw in 20 year's interest to allow time for the
owners to move in and start writing checks. Then tell us how long the
payback will be, and how excited the existing ratepayers will get over
the investment "opportunity". :-)
Wayne
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-27, 1:21 pm |
| SteveF wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:a25l03-s59.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
>
> How did I not plan well for the fact that the coldest temperatures and the
> least amount of solar energy occur at the same time of year?
The planning comes in making sure that you can switch the heating to
providing domestic hot water.
> Don't know
> about most families but my wife and I take showers and do laundry year
> 'round.
And you don't do more of that in the summer? It's an extremely rare
occasion for me to take two showers in one day during the winter. It's
pretty common in summer. I get clothes dirty much faster when I'm working
in the garden in summer, so we do more laundry.
> Also, this is for a workshop where there is no need for hot
> water.
Like I said, bad planning.
>
> OK, how about heavy cloud cover for 5 days? The point is that an
> additional system is needed.
Of course it is - I live off-grid, and I rarely need my generator, but I
still have to have it. It's all a balancing act.
> How about listing the equipment you've got on your house and how well each
> component is working so I can see if I'm on the right track.
OK, though I'm not sure how we'll quantify "how well" :-)
100W solar panel, morningstar controller, 4 x 100AH 12V (sealed) batteries
supplying my 24VDC well pump. This system has been zero-maintenance for 4
years, never required a backup generator (the battery bank is seriously
oversized - it's never even hit the low voltage cutoff).
330W solar panels supplying 24V DC (nominal) to the household ventilation
system. This system pushes hot air through the slab for heating. Air is
heated by passive solar gain. The system is new and I won't know how well
it's worked until spring. Excess power (anything over 60W) goes to the
general household system.
500W solar panels (+ excess from above) supplying a Trace C40 charge
controller charging main battery bank
Air-X wind generator charging the same bank of batteries. Maintenance free
for two years.
1500AH of Surrette 6V batteries (in 24V config). This requires a little
maintenance. Check the water levels. Run the generator about 1 hour/day
during the fall (last year it was mid-October to mid-January, the previous
year much less - "Old Farmers Almanac" says this year, awful :-) ). Again,
the batteries were oversized. I could have saved about $3000 and used half
as many. As it is, when they do hit the low voltage cutoff, it takes me
far too long to fully charge them (it's not possible in a day).
A "Cansolair" forced air heater - pumps air through an external collector.
Definitely works, but I'm not convinced we're getting our money's worth.
This runs off its own 50W or smaller PV panel and a very small gel battery.
Winter is not a bad time for us. Once the water off-shore gets really cold,
the fog disappears and we get a lot of solar gain (at least as much as
summer due to lack of cloud and extra reflective gain off the snow and
ice).
The next purchase will be a solar hot-water system.
--
derek
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:50:18 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org>
wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>
>Even considering a lifetime of utility bills?
With their average electric bill being $55 and figuring they have an
estimated 25 years left, yea. Considerably cheaper.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-27, 2:21 pm |
| Mark wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:50:18 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> With their average electric bill being $55 and figuring they have an
> estimated 25 years left, yea. Considerably cheaper.
>
My father in law's electric bill is over $150 / month. Different folks.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Pete C. 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
| "R.H. Allen" wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> Unless public transit is available, or it would cost less than the car
> to move to a place within walking or bicycling distance of work, or it
> would cost less than the car to find a new job within walking or
> bicycling distance of home. Under any of those circumstances, payback
> for the car would be longer than the life of the car.
My point still stands "when it enables you to get to work and make a
decent income". It is implicit that "when it enables" means viable
public transit does not exist, the distance is too far to walk or
bicycle and relocation is not feasible.
>
> Of course, there are any number of other purposes that could enhance the
> value of the car and, hence, shorten the payback period, but good luck
> finding universal agreement on what those purposes might be and how much
> they might be worth.
The ability to get groceries and get to medical care are probably two
biggies.
>
> The original point (now snipped) being, as I recall, that not everything
> comes down to money. Or perhaps more accurately, that all of us assign
> value to material goods on different bases. Some people are willing to
> pay a premium to generate their electricity on-site from renewable
> sources. Some people are willing to pay a premium for a large vehicle
> and (implicitly) accept the financial risk associated with low gas
> mileage and volatile gas prices. Some people are willing to pay $100 for
> a beanie baby or a baseball card.
I don't recall that being the original point, or it was not well worded.
The OP seemed to imply that payback on an auto was very long which in
most cases it is not.
>
> Since electricity and heat are fungible, it's easy to focus on payback
> time for renewable energy systems. However, detractors often miss the
> fact that these systems have value for their owners beyond the energy
> produced (and that's without even attempting to get into the thorny
> question of the economic value of the reduced emissions associated with
> the systems).
In my case my interest in RES is basically a hobby interest. It fits in
well with all my other tech hobbies and if some DIY projects can reduce
expenses a bit all the better.
Pete C.
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
| Around here its about $50/meter
"DJ" <dj_macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127833407.166659.276790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
up a[color=darkred]
>
> I've had clients tell me that the quotes they got from either Quebec
> Hydro or Ontario Hydro ranged from 20k$ for a hundred yards to 50k$ per
> kilometer, plus any blasting required.
>
> Doesn't take long to justify an alternative power system.
>
> In my own personal case, the quote was 150k$ for 2.5 kilometers.
> Amusingly, the bank was willing to lend that money to us to bring in
> the grid, but not to lend us the 50k$ for the alternative power system
> that replaced it eventually...
>
> DJ
>
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:3mrn03-ql9.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Nottingham wrote:
>
that[color=darkred]
help[color=darkred]
you?[color=darkred]
>
> Available - but at the cost of my off-grid installation.
;-)[color=darkred]
$0.50/kWhr[color=darkred]
>
> No, it's not. Grid connections are extra. You are paying $0.12/kWHr, but
> the cost of connecting got figured into the cost of the home for the
> original owner - it was never part of the utility's calculation.
Delivery,
> metering, debt retirement and bend over tax (I like that) _are_ part of
the
> utility's charge.
> --
> derek
It cost $2400 to tie in 8 years ago = $300/year or an additional $25/month
to date. Am I missing your point here?
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
| Unless you choose to squat in a dark cave you end up paying monthly
anyways - either to the utility or towards maintaining and operating your
"off grid" system.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:Dqe_e.2536$dl2.2347@fe08.lga...
> Mark wrote:
<sspence@green-trust.org>[color=darkred]
accessible[color=darkred]
house.[color=darkred]
after[color=darkred]
transformer,[color=darkred]
>
> My father in law's electric bill is over $150 / month. Different folks.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
| Not any more thanks to government downloading.
At one time energy was cheap and plentiful and subsidized by our taxes. Now
it's been privatized and we keep getting it shoved deeper and deeper up the
....
"DJ" <dj_macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127834396.761730.325380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
more[color=darkred]
if[color=darkred]
charge[color=darkred]
>
> And if it is multiple poles, there is also usually inspection charges
> (Ontario's Electrical Safety Authority) of several hundred dollars,
> engineering surveys for location, site preparation/tree
> clearing/blasting and access provision...
>
> DJ
>
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-27, 4:21 pm |
| Nottingham wrote:
> Unless you choose to squat in a dark cave you end up paying monthly
> anyways - either to the utility or towards maintaining and operating your
> "off grid" system.
>
Maintaining an "off-grid" system is pennies compared to giving the power
company the monthly rent. Most months you don't pay anything. This year
my total expenditures was a $160 for a starter rebuild on the veggie
gen. and $10 / month in motor oil.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:37:08 -0400, "Nottingham"
<mikeNOSPAMster.d2@gmail.com> wrote:
>Around here its about $50/meter
Hey "Nottingham", I notice that you're top posting, have used two
different user names in only three months, and your ISP is Golden.net,
all just like Gymmy Bob/Solar Flare/John Bengi/Pizza Girl etc. What a
coincidence that you showed up in the same energy groups he's been
frequenting lately, and your very first post was in response to his!
But he seems to be in favor of PV, while you seem to be against.
Perhaps you can have some interesting discussions. Anyway, can you see
his place from where you're sitting? It would be the one with monitor
glow shining out one window day and night.
Wayne
| |
|
| Where is the "total cost" analysis. I wish one was available that had a
positive theme to it, but I've not seen such a beast.
Several years ago, before retiring (I was developing and selling silicon
panels into this market with a major semiconductor manufacturer.) I had
some of my folks and a major university in Cambridge do a detailed
analysis done of the true life cycle cost ($ and energy) required to
produce PV solar collection panels and the ancillary electronics to
connect, store, use, and re-sell the resulting energy. The bad part was
that when all of the energy required, including the production and
refinement of raw materials, the manufacture, refinement,
transportation, and storage of the ultra-high purity gases required, the
operation of clean room facilities including high vacuum processing
equipment, the manufacture of batteries, etc. was considered a net
benefit was not there.
As is frequently the case, the proponents of any approach select the
boundaries of their system so that the favored result is obtained when
an analysis is done. When the system's extent is complete the answer is
frequently different.
Examples would be electric cars of the 80's and 90's...there was not
enough electrical energy generated in the US nation-wide to supply the
transportation needs supplied then by cars, let alone trucks. Even if
there had been enough generated the distribution system could not
deliver it during the 6:00pm to 6:00am period. Stored sunlight in the
form of oil is a very energy dense medium.
Hydrogen cars: if the system being analyzed includes the production of
liquefied H2 and its safe delivery, storage and use, the result I
suspect, won't look good.
Stored sunlight, still won hands down.
My preference is a sound (non government controlled) nuclear energy program.
I'm now prepared to receive the lightning bolts. I'm in my Faraday cage
so fire at will. ;-)
Boden
the seventh sign wrote:
> sparky wrote:
>
>
> Why wait for five years when you can read about it from people who
> started doing it 10 years ago?
>
>
> solarhouse.com
>
>
> TSS
| |
|
|
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ued_e.276132$tt5.130632@edtnps90...
>
> "Paul" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Nj2_e.9096$kH3.4268@trnddc01...
>
> Yeah, accountability is for eggheads, not real people.
>
My comment was not directed at anyone in particular
except Nick. I thought the Einstien/A-bomb analogy was
clever.
| |
|
|
"boden" <boden@tidewater.net> wrote in message
news:4339A124.1050407@tidewater.net...
> Where is the "total cost" analysis. I wish one was available that had a
> positive theme to it, but I've not seen such a beast.
>
> Several years ago, before retiring (I was developing and selling silicon
> panels into this market with a major semiconductor manufacturer.) I had
> some of my folks and a major university in Cambridge do a detailed
> analysis done of the true life cycle cost ($ and energy) required to
> produce PV solar collection panels and the ancillary electronics to
> connect, store, use, and re-sell the resulting energy. The bad part was
> that when all of the energy required, including the production and
> refinement of raw materials, the manufacture, refinement, transportation,
> and storage of the ultra-high purity gases required, the operation of
> clean room facilities including high vacuum processing equipment, the
> manufacture of batteries, etc. was considered a net benefit was not there.
>
> As is frequently the case, the proponents of any approach select the
> boundaries of their system so that the favored result is obtained when an
> analysis is done. When the system's extent is complete the answer is
> frequently different.
>
> Examples would be electric cars of the 80's and 90's...there was not
> enough electrical energy generated in the US nation-wide to supply the
> transportation needs supplied then by cars, let alone trucks. Even if
> there had been enough generated the distribution system could not deliver
> it during the 6:00pm to 6:00am period. Stored sunlight in the form of oil
> is a very energy dense medium.
>
> Hydrogen cars: if the system being analyzed includes the production of
> liquefied H2 and its safe delivery, storage and use, the result I suspect,
> won't look good.
>
> Stored sunlight, still won hands down.
>
> My preference is a sound (non government controlled) nuclear energy
> program.
>
> I'm now prepared to receive the lightning bolts. I'm in my Faraday cage
> so fire at will. ;-)
>
> Boden
>
> the seventh sign wrote:
>
Regrettably I end to agree for the most part. In California we have
a buydown (subsidy) program that pays about $3 a watt for a PV system.
This fund comes from all electric users paying a small amount in their
monthly bill. It works OK if maybe .01% of the electric users put in
a small system. But the math shows that as more and more of the users
decide to put in larger systems, the fund will run out. They would have
to pay less per watt or charge the users more or both.
I know people will say that PV will come down in cost real soon
now. But I don't think the the people that do the PV roadmaps for
the DOE and others see any huge cost reductions any time soon.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-09-27, 7:21 pm |
| JoeSixPack <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Yeah, accountability is for eggheads, not real people.
Picture a tribe of African pygmies. You say "I'll help you move your dead
gorilla with my pickup truck." Having never seen a pickup truck, they call
you crazy and laugh you out of the jungle :-)
People who know more about how things work need fewer demonstrations.
More ignorant people say "show me" more often and tend to disbelieve
300-year-old physics...
Nick
| |
|
| On 27 Sep 2005 17:32:45 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>People who know more about how things work need fewer demonstrations.
>More ignorant people say "show me" more often and tend to disbelieve
>300-year-old physics...
>
>Nick
True, but on the other hand I was able to make magic-mass become as
invisible as a perpetual motion machine simply by waving my wand and
chanting "show me". In case you don't believe in my powers, just
consider that during the recent lengthy thread about mass, even though
magic-mass must have been aching to make an appearance, it failed to
rematerialize. :-)
Wayne
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-27, 8:21 pm |
| Your mutual troll with George has been perpetual motion.
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:i3fjj15j9cu5cfu0da46kjf3ii0p1oehv1@4ax.com...
On 27 Sep 2005 17:32:45 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>People who know more about how things work need fewer demonstrations.
>More ignorant people say "show me" more often and tend to disbelieve
>300-year-old physics...
>
>Nick
True, but on the other hand I was able to make magic-mass become as
invisible as a perpetual motion machine simply by waving my wand and
chanting "show me". In case you don't believe in my powers, just
consider that during the recent lengthy thread about mass, even though
magic-mass must have been aching to make an appearance, it failed to
rematerialize. :-)
Wayne
| |
| daestrom 2005-09-27, 9:21 pm |
|
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:l8mij1t38af20u2kv2l3i873agkak4r9ds@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:29:37 GMT, Ecnerwal
> <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote:
>
>
> A friend recently inquired about extending the grid slightly over a
> mile to his property in NW AZ. The initial estimate was $80k. If he
> were to pay the money, in a few years there would likely be someone on
> or near the route of the new wires telling us - "in AZ, they hook you
> up for free". :-)
>
So hows that work? If your friend paid the $80k to have a line run, does
his neighbor get to hook on for free? Or do they figure out some kind of
shared financing for the first five years or so??
Worst case, the guy who moves way out of town for his privacy, but pays
utility for hook up, ends up with a lot of neighbors that 'mooch' off his
utility line? Great reason to *not* do put in utility line.
daestrom
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-27, 10:21 pm |
| daestrom wrote:
....
> So hows that work? If your friend paid the $80k to have a line run, does
> his neighbor get to hook on for free? Or do they figure out some kind of
> shared financing for the first five years or so??
Unless the two hookups are done at the same time, the first person
pays for it all. The second person only pays for whatever it takes
to hook them up.
> Worst case, the guy who moves way out of town for his privacy, but pays
> utility for hook up, ends up with a lot of neighbors that 'mooch' off his
> utility line? Great reason to *not* do put in utility line.
Yes, it's a very good reason to not put in a utility line.
The same goes with water, natural gas, sewers and maybe even
phone lines. Once the utility is there, it will attract others
to use it.
Anthony
| |
| wmbjk 2005-09-27, 10:21 pm |
| On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:11:18 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:l8mij1t38af20u2kv2l3i873agkak4r9ds@4ax.com...
>
>So hows that work? If your friend paid the $80k to have a line run, does
>his neighbor get to hook on for free? Or do they figure out some kind of
>shared financing for the first five years or so??
I'm not up on the Corporation Commission rules for the power
companies, and can only report what the friend told me - that he was
told he'd get nothing if somebody else hooked up. I don't think he's
quite correct though. I expect he'd get something back *if* the new
hookup was in the near future (some costs for the phone company for
example are pro-rated over five years). At least that's what I heard
from someone else a few years back. In that case, when the second
person hooked up to power (almost immediately), the first got a
rebate. They remained disgruntled though, so apparently the rebate
wasn't 50%. ;-) It's tough to follow from second hand info, since the
up-front costs are based on a high estimate, and there's likely a
rebate anyway once the actual costs are in. Regardless, I'm sure the
rules vary greatly from one company to another.
>Worst case, the guy who moves way out of town for his privacy, but pays
>utility for hook up, ends up with a lot of neighbors that 'mooch' off his
>utility line? Great reason to *not* do put in utility line.
Yup. And from what I've seen, if you approach your neighbors about
sharing the cost, the incentive is for them to hold off hoping to
freeload. That's not all the fault of the policy makers though, it has
a lot to do with society's "me first" attitude in general. And a
little to do with many purchasers' tendency to be poorly informed
about the potential costs. They get the land cheap, then find out they
can't afford the real cost of development, and then out of necessity
hope somebody else will pay the freight.
Wayne
| |
| LCT Paintball 2005-09-28, 12:21 am |
|
> In my own personal case, the quote was 150k$ for 2.5 kilometers.
> Amusingly, the bank was willing to lend that money to us to bring in
> the grid, but not to lend us the 50k$ for the alternative power system
> that replaced it eventually...
>
My power company charged me $4,000 to run power to my shop that was 8 feet
away from their pole.
| |
| Bender 2005-09-28, 2:21 am |
| Nothing personal JSP, but your message I picked at random as proof to the
problem with bottom posting. 122 lines of which 4 were yours... that's 3%
original content. No wonder my eyez glaze over reading most everyonez post
here.
Oh wait.. that's caused by the alcohol i use to power my fuel cells... ;-)
"JoeSixPack" wrote in a long-winded message ....
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-28, 10:21 am |
| Wayne, I wish I could see his house so I could poke fun at the PV people
directly ;-) Reminds me of that old joke "so you're from china you say...do
you know so and so...?"
Sorry about the top posting as I'm still using M$. Wrong handles below (not
me sorry) but you can still reach me by my email address which hasn't
changed.
I seriously looked into PV&wind when I built my house but I couldn't justify
the added cost and poor payback - for my area that is. Not enough sun or
wind for anything but a small battery charger. I did pick up and excellent
book on climactic building design and I take advantage of passive solar,
building shape/design and lots of thermal mass. That part has paid off
handsomely.
Cheers, Mike
PS. Can I take it you're in/near Vancouver WA based on the headers?
"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:bt7jj11hc4k1tvlqgdihj81l4v6kr8nrns@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:37:08 -0400, "Nottingham"
> <mikeNOSPAMster.d2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey "Nottingham", I notice that you're top posting, have used two
> different user names in only three months, and your ISP is Golden.net,
> all just like Gymmy Bob/Solar Flare/John Bengi/Pizza Girl etc. What a
> coincidence that you showed up in the same energy groups he's been
> frequenting lately, and your very first post was in response to his!
> But he seems to be in favor of PV, while you seem to be against.
> Perhaps you can have some interesting discussions. Anyway, can you see
> his place from where you're sitting? It would be the one with monitor
> glow shining out one window day and night.
>
> Wayne
| |
| Nottingham 2005-09-28, 10:21 am |
|
"LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:jln_e.372222$_o.346613@attbi_s71...
>
>
>
> My power company charged me $4,000 to run power to my shop that was 8 feet
> away from their pole.
>
>
Ouch. What kind/size of service? Underground I take it?
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-28, 10:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> daestrom wrote:
> ...
>
> Unless the two hookups are done at the same time, the first person
> pays for it all. The second person only pays for whatever it takes
> to hook them up.
You're kidding, right?
If I put up power poles I _own_ those poles. The utility is going to have
to buy them back from me, before selling service on them to anybody else.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-28, 10:21 am |
| Nottingham wrote:
> $0.50/kWhr
> Delivery,
> the
>
> It cost $2400 to tie in 8 years ago = $300/year or an additional $25/month
> to date. Am I missing your point here?
_Everybody's_ paying utility rates in the ballp | | |