Slashdot Mirror

Me from 2000: http://www.dougengelbart.org/c...
Me from 2004: http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/...
Me from 2008: https://groups.google.com/foru...

Or me from 2011:
http://phibetaiota.net/2011/09...
"The greatest threat facing the USA is the irony inherent in our current defense posture, like for example planning to use nuclear energy embodied in missiles to fight over oil fields that nuclear energy could replace. This irony arises in part because the USAâ(TM)s current security logic is still based on essentially 19th century and earlier (second millennium) thinking that becomes inappropriate applied to 21st century (third millennium) technological threats and opportunities. That situation represents a systematic intelligence failure of the highest magnitude. There remains time to correct this failure, but time grows short as various exponential trends continue."

Frankly, I've spent almost twenty years on Slashdot arguing with many posters who disregarded solar energy (and other renewables, as well as energy efficiency); example of me debating that from 2013:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

See also Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute's work, including from 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or John Todd and the (now defunct/spunoff) New Alchemy Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The New Alchemy Institute was a research center that did pioneering investigation into organic agriculture, aquaculture, and bioshelter design between 1969 and 1991. It was founded by John Todd, Nancy Jack Todd, and William McLarney. Its purpose was to research human support systems of food, water, and shelter and to completely rethink how these systems were designed."

And Home Power magazine. https://www.homepower.com/

Solar energy has been more and more effective in ever broader niche uses which drove its growth for decades (as Home Power magazine and others predicted years ago) -- from satellites, to calculators, to homes ten miles off-grid, to generator replacements for temporary traffic lights, to one mile-off-grid homes, to on-grid homes. Finally now that grid parity has been widely reached and it is becoming foolish in most places to install anything but solar PV for electricity generation, now everyone wakes up to what has been going on. Although even now their remain deniers here and there (as in that slashdot post linked above).

=== The bigger picture: general exponential trends across multiple technologies

As I noted in the 2000 post I made, the same exponential changes in technological capacity that drive cheaper PV also apply in other areas -- even for cheaper nuclear energy (whether from uranium, thorium or hot/cold fusion). But for the same reasons most people ignored the PV trends, most people ignore these other trends.

Here is a proposal I sent to DARPA in 1999 to try to deal with the consequences of exponential technological growth (including(as we see with North Korea recently increased capacity globally for making WMDs):
https://groups.google.com/foru...
"I agree with Hans Moravec on several points; one of them is the implications of this chart:

So the first question is just, do renewables actually work to replace base load? It'll only make it harder later if they don't. It is up to champions of renewable energy to SHOW that they can.

For residential base load they certainly can. Otherwise this or this wouldn't be a thing. For commercial base load, that will depend on whether or not the required amount of uninterruptible heavy industrial processes exceeds the amount of available hydro power backed by the usual wind and photovoltaic. Given the size of the list of, for instance, wafer manufacturers, this seems at least ball park possible. Figuring out an alternative process for manufacturing cement will probably be tricky, since powdered coal kilns are just so effective, but maybe biogas can hack it. Heavy industry will be the last thing to switch over, and maybe it never will. There's always fission.

I just read your post rudely telling someone to go google battery efficiency. Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Small household inverters might be around 90% efficient (10% loss) running near their peak output. If your setup allowed the inverter to idle or only supply a small amount of power (running your alarm clock at night), it could be very much worse than that. http://www.homepower.com/artic...

That's only one side. You've also go to convert the AC to DC. An average of 25% conversion loss doesn't sound too unreasonable (and the OP posted an IEEE reference to that effect). Unlike your completely unreferenced post.

www.homepower.com
They have a print version, but have been offering a PDF version (no DRM) for many years.
The PDF used to be available for free download from the main web page, that seems to have changed so it is now available to subscribers only.
I do not know what CMS (Content Management System) they use but it seems to work for them.
Each subscriber gets a unique download url so I don't think it can be shared.

Alternatively you could just create a FUDL (Fake Unique Download URL) like:
www.example.com/5tsQ7ghs/issue3-2013/
and send those out to each "subscriber", telling them it is for their use only and change the name of the directory to some other goofy name for the next issue.
of course this does not really provide PP (Piracy Proof) content, but I think that has been commented on enough already and I think you should just let that part go.
Make it easy for people that want to pay to get the digital version but make it just a little bit hard to figure it out if you are not a subscriber.

I could just thank you for pointing out something cool I had somehow missed when I needed to redo my roof a few years back.

Are you new here? Just kidding. I've had too many conversations with superkendall and hairyfeet I guess.

(Though your tone makes me more inclined to just consider you an ass and move on).

Irony is a lost art. Apparently lost to me, anyway. I guess I need more practice.

http://wavs.unclebubby.com/wav/MOVIES/Roxanne/irony_rox.wav

I understand that the nailing and underlayment for solar shingles are critically important to get right. If you decide to use them, try to find an experienced installer or sign up for a workshop before you do it yourself. You might also be interested in Home Power Magazine, it's kind of west-coast biased but still an excellent resource.

I sat down and did the math a couple of years ago and concluded that I would never break even.

You did the math wrong.

First, you have the problem of power factor, which means that with fluorescent bulbs, you're often drawing a lot more power than you think, it just isn't getting metered that way

No, you don't -- and you're contradicting yourself. If there was more power being drawn, but somehow it wasn't being metered, then it wouldn't effect your break-even, you'd be getting the extra power for free. But in fact, there is no extra power. Watts are watts; don't be confused that they don't always equal volt-amps in non-DC circuits.

you have the spectrum of light, which because it is balanced towards the blue end and because it isn't a continuous spectrum

Full spectrum CFLs are inexpensively available.

And that's before you add in things like the increase in depression, suicides, and cancer linked with fluorescent lighting.

Comparing the standard industrial flickering "cool-white" fluorescent lighting with CFLs is ridiculous. Indeed, the first page you link to mentions a study by Ott comparing "full-spectrum, radiation-shielded fluorescent light fixtures" with the usual white tubes. If you read the page you linked to, you'd see it's not fluorescent lighting versus incandescent that the problem.

As for the second link, the study in question found that women in neighborhoods with lots of night-time illumination are more likely to get breast cancer. (Not surprisingly, the ironically-named Reason distorts the findings.) Linking that to fluorescent lighting rather than general interference with circadian rhythms, is speculative at best.

How long they are 'guaranteed' for is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the first place, trusting in that means trusting the company offering the guarantee will be around and will honor it, and in the second place that the owner will remember to invoke the 'guarantee' and obtain replacements.

If people don't stand up for thenselves nothing is relevant, people usually have to stand up for themselves, no matter what it's over. This is no different. People need to investigate installers and the products they use if they are not specified. Plenty of people have built off the grid and share information and their experiences. There are a number of publications, magazines, touching on various things these people do or are interested in. I've personally been reading magazines like Homepower, Backwoods Home, and Solar Today for 10 or 20 years if not more.

Even if the 'guarantee' exists, and is honored, that still doesn't change what I said. Panels that need replacement for whatever reason mean new panels need to be manufactured.

This doesn't change the fact that old panels can be recycled and that new one have better efficiency so less are needed to supply the same amount of power if not more.

Learn to think, rather than parroting.

I suggest you do the same, PV Panel Disposal and Recycling, The Value and Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.

Falcon

First off, the goal is not just electricity reduction, but also carbon output reduction. As the engineer at my local college observed, "The best way to save energy is to not burn it in the first place." A PassivHaus reaches for that goal but being virtually airtight, and not allowing the heat to escape.

In order to get people to switch, you have to make it make economical sense; not everybody is motivated to reduce carbon emissions, heck, the minority of the world is interested in reducing their own personal emissions; they're rather make nebulous 'others' do it. Even those that are are only willing pay varying amounts of economic penalties for doing it.

A PassivHaus doesn't need air conditioning either, since the mass of the house keeps the heat *outside* the building. It's somewhat similar to how a basement remains cool even when it's 90 degrees outside. All you need is a fan or ventitlation system to keep the inhabitants comfortable.

My house doesn't have AC at all. Hard to beat that. Oh, and if your measure of 'cool' is 90 degrees outside, what about when it's 110-120? Looking at the design, it looks almost like it has a heat pump, but I suppose it might be the tunnel type heat exchanger I read about one time. Essentially a great big air duct? Expensive, and limited depending on the area of install - it'd be problematic in Florida, for example. Or up in NY where my grandparents live - you go very deep you hit bedrock.

And you're wrong about the electric heating, because you confused the word "electric" with "reistance" heating.

No confusion; wouldn't YOU be interested in demand based pricing, even if you have a heat pump?

Oh, and NG is ~$12 per million BTU. There's 3412.3 BTU per kwh, assuming $.10 per kwh, that's $23.44 per million BTU. Twice as expensive, effectively. If you have a good heat pump in a good area for it, you might get the cost per MBTU down to $5.86, which would indeed be cheap, but then again some areas of California was charging $.20/kwh, which would put even the heat pump in competition with raw residential NG prices.

Plus, in my area the heat pump loses it's effectiveness for around 3 months a year - it's just too cold for them. So you end up falling back on a secondary heat system - whether that be direct resistance, NG, propane, wood, or whatever. I DO know about geothermal - I was quoted $30k when I asked. From two different sources. So no need to explain a heat pump - I know full well what they are.

Not correct. A 15 watt CFL with 0.5 power factors draws 100% more current than if you replaced it with a 15 watt resistance, incandescent bulb with PF==1. Put another way:

It draws more max current, but not evenly. As a result, there's more generation and transmission line losses because those losses scale with current, but the effect is actually limited. Especially since the power company itself will put in PFC equipment if it starts getting bad.

- the 15 watt flourescent burns 30 volt-amps
- the 15 watt incandescent burns 15 volt-amps
- therefore the incandescent burns less coal at the electric plant

More like 16 vs 15.5 if you start including line resistances and assume that the CFL has a particularly bad PF and no correction equipment(could be as little as some capaciters).

http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP96_pg128_Letters_1 -

A 75 watt incandescent bulb measured 70 watts and 70 volt-amperes out of the inverter, which is what you would expect with a power factor of 1.0. The TriMetric meter measuring true power from the batteries measured 71.8 watts (volts times amps). The slightly higher wattage was due to inefficiency in converting 12 volt DC to 120 volt AC.

Then I lit a 25 watt CFL. It measured 25 watts and 52 volt-amperes out of the inverter, wh

It obviously has nothing to do with the 15-30 year window before you reach 1:1 parity with energy invested::energy harvested.

Only it's not 15 to 30 years before wind turbines make as much energy as was required to make the turbines. According to this the financial payback period, for which the energy used to make the turbines is included, is 4 to 8 years. Another page has the payback period for wind turbines on Orkney Islands as under 10 years. Here's another that says there's a payback period of 10 years. Now this says the ASU wind turbine has a life expectancy of 20 years. Now there are still some Jacobs wind turbines still in service that were made before 1950. "In Minnesota, Jacobs units began being connected to Rural Electric Cooperative (REC) grids starting in 1981. Many of these systems are still on line to REC grids' selling renewable wind power (AG-WATTS) in 2008." Because of their reliability some people look for old Jacobs and if they aren't working will rebuild them. The people at Homepower love them.

Falcon

You're wrong about power factor.

A power factor of 0.5 does NOT mean that the device uses twice the power (where power means joules per second). It means it knocks the supply out of phase slightly and as a result, the grid has to use capacitors to correct the phase, or generate more VA (but not more power).

There's a good discussion of it here:

http://www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP96_pg128_Letters_1

Yes it will gel at low temperatures, so does diesel. You can preheat both and mix something in to help that with both. I doesnt, however, clog up fuel injectors. What it does do is clean all of the accumulated crud out of your system, which is why you will need to change your filter at about 500 miles after the changeover, and maybe again after 1000 miles if your system is really grungy. If you start with straight biodiesel with a new vehicle, you wont have this problem at all. http://www.homepower.com/ is a good source of real world information on energy production and usages.

BS! People have been building off the grid since the beginning of civilization. Only those who do it today have electricity. Offgridders use various sources of alternative energy including geothermal, solar, wind, and microhydro along with others.

producing your own needs for electricity is great
but its a VERY SMALL amount of the world's total energy consumption.

Today off grid applications are small but it can easily be expanded. Solar, wind, and other systems can quickly be added. Solar panels can be placed of roofs for instance. Farmers can erect, or have erected, wind gennies on towers. They don't take up much space and they'll create a new source of income for farmers.

But the first thing offgridders do though is to reduce energy use, conserve electricity. Instead of using 75 watt incandescent lights, they'll use 15 watt CFLs or LEDs under 10 watts. For hot water, tankless instant on water heaters are more efficient. Solar hot water heater systems can bee used themselves, or can preheat water for instant on heaters. Passive solar designs can reduce any need for heating and cooling of indoor space, and with insulation with high R values heating and cooling can be eliminated. But even if heating is needed or wanted geothermal heating can be used. And by reversing the system when hot it can cool space as well.

There are many things that can be done to reduce energy consumed.

Falcon

independence

Agreed!!!

with the next goal as cleaner fuels and energy production methods.

We have those now, though more research needs to be done to increase efficiency and storage.

Presently, plug-in vehicles just mean the burning coal or oil elsewhere.

It may be that way now but if the electricity is produced by renewable resources it doesn't have to remain that way. I'm not sure if it was in "Homepower" or "Solar Today" but someone had written how they recharge their EV with energy generated by a solar or hybrid system.

Falcon

In a , all of the "free" energy sources are more expensive than coal in terms of $ per MWh.

Funny, that doesn't say anything about the subsidies coal gets. I wonder how cheap coal is if you add in those subsidies. Then there's all the external costs of coal.

the U.S. wind plant figures on page 55 look good simply because the U.S. rates wind plants with a 40 year lifespan, vs 20 years for the rest of the world

There are Jacobs Wind Turbines older than 40 years old still working. People look for Jacobs made in the 1930s and '40s to use.

About $45/MWh for wind vs. about $30/MWh for coal and nuclear.

And I bet subsidies are not included in the cost of coal and nuclear but they are for wind.

The problem with the wind and solar is that they are very sparse.

This is not true in the US. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists what regions are good or bad for wind, and the only region in the US that is not good for wind is the southeast. However Florida is part of the southeast and it's great for solar. Also good for solar is Texas west to California then up the coast.

Hydro, geothermal, and biofuels (which is really using plants as your solar collectors) look like much better candidates long-term.

I disagree about hydro but agree about geothermal. Biofuels might become good later but as it's done in the US today it sucks. Corn, which is what's used in the US, is a bad feedstock, sugarcane is better and switchgrass is currently the best.

Falcon

Wind genies are generally not very helpful - bottle genies give wishes but wind genies almost never do. Wind genies are also less amenable to being cited you could end up having copyright issues and as many people know the RIAA employ wind genies for magical purposes.

Gosh, I got a kick out of that. I wish I came up with it, "wind genies", but I first came across it in "Home Power", "Solar Today", or another such magazine several years ago. I've been using it on /. for years.

Falcon

given that someone has to build and service a windmill, and that you need a lot of them to replace even a single nuclear power plant, and that working on a high tower is inherently dangerous, which would actually cause more deaths, wind or nuclear ?

Ask those who build their homes Off the Grid and erect their own wind genies how dangerous they are.

Falcon

The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc.

In one post I said dams also require a lot of concrete and steel. I said in another dams weren't clean either. Wind genies on the other had don't require nearly as much of either. Neither the genie nor the tower use much steel and no concrete. The pad does use both but not much of either. Check "Home Power magazine, many people erect their owe wind genies. Here's their Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide. I didn't check to see if it said anything about them but there are a number of turbines up to 5 megawatts in capacity. The CNet article "GE reshapes the future of wind power" has a quote saying 2 to 3 megawatt genies are the "most efficient and the best cost per kilowatt" by Stephane Renou "who manages research and development for General Electric's wind technology platform." Wind genies don't need to be cited in the middle of nowhere either. Here in Minnesota , as can be done elsewhere, produce farms such as corn farms have wind genies cited on them. This actually helps farmers, the pads for the genies don't take up much space yet the farmers get paid for how much electricity is produced. So far MN has 615 megawatts of wind power installed, California has 2,096 megawatts. And whereas it takes years to build a nuclear power plant wind genies can be mounted on erected towers in months if not weeks. Erect 10 5 megawatt genies a month and you add 600 megawatts a year. Say it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in that tyme enough wind genies can be erected to generate 3 gigawatts. The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station was the last nuclear power plant to go online in the US. Construction started in 1973 and wasn't finished until 1996. It took more than 30 years yet it's capacity is only 1,167 megawatts. Enough wind genies can be erected within 2 years to generate the same amount of electricity. Check out T Boone Pickens' Picken's Plan. While I don't know much about it myself, I've been following alternative energy some 30 years. The Rocky Mountains alone, which the plan considers, has enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. However as the Wind Atlas shows there are plenty of other states with abundant wind power.

Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.

Oh really? What happens to the tailings? Do they disappear? The Navajo have nothing to worry about? Neither do any of the other indigenous people on who's land uranium is mined?

Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.

And where are these plants? Can you show me one?

Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.

Claimed fine by whom? Certainly not by Belarus. Oh but I guess the Zone of alienation means nothing.

There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.

Okay then, let Wall Street pay for them. They won't, unless they get more massive subsidies. Give alternative sources of energy as much in subsidies as coal and nuclear power gets and I be

The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc.

In one post I said dams also require a lot of concrete and steel. I said in another dams weren't clean either. Wind genies on the other had don't require nearly as much of either. Neither the genie nor the tower use much steel and no concrete. The pad does use both but not much of either. Check "Home Power magazine, many people erect their owe wind genies. Here's their Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide. I didn't check to see if it said anything about them but there are a number of turbines up to 5 megawatts in capacity. The CNet article "GE reshapes the future of wind power" has a quote saying 2 to 3 megawatt genies are the "most efficient and the best cost per kilowatt" by Stephane Renou "who manages research and development for General Electric's wind technology platform." Wind genies don't need to be cited in the middle of nowhere either. Here in Minnesota , as can be done elsewhere, produce farms such as corn farms have wind genies cited on them. This actually helps farmers, the pads for the genies don't take up much space yet the farmers get paid for how much electricity is produced. So far MN has 615 megawatts of wind power installed, California has 2,096 megawatts. And whereas it takes years to build a nuclear power plant wind genies can be mounted on erected towers in months if not weeks. Erect 10 5 megawatt genies a month and you add 600 megawatts a year. Say it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in that tyme enough wind genies can be erected to generate 3 gigawatts. The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station was the last nuclear power plant to go online in the US. Construction started in 1973 and wasn't finished until 1996. It took more than 30 years yet it's capacity is only 1,167 megawatts. Enough wind genies can be erected within 2 years to generate the same amount of electricity. Check out T Boone Pickens' Picken's Plan. While I don't know much about it myself, I've been following alternative energy some 30 years. The Rocky Mountains alone, which the plan considers, has enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. However as the Wind Atlas shows there are plenty of other states with abundant wind power.

Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.

Oh really? What happens to the tailings? Do they disappear? The Navajo have nothing to worry about? Neither do any of the other indigenous people on who's land uranium is mined?

Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.

And where are these plants? Can you show me one?

Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.

Claimed fine by whom? Certainly not by Belarus. Oh but I guess the Zone of alienation means nothing.

There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.

Okay then, let Wall Street pay for them. They won't, unless they get more massive subsidies. Give alternative sources of energy as much in subsidies as coal and nuclear power gets and I be

My overall point, and I know you disagree, is that the government will absolutely have to intervene before rural areas will get decent broadband

Again I suggest you look at the spread of the light bulb and the electric grid.

The spread of light bulbs and the electric grid is because government subsidized them. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Rural Utilities Service which subsidized rural electrification as I've stated elsewhere. And in many places electricity was generated by wind turbines, also as stated before. Jacobs Wind Generators were among the most popular. Even today people still search for Jacobs as they were reliable and are still usable. "Homepower magazine" has several articles about them including people using them today.

Indeed. If only more politicians would say no to every idiotic proposal thrown at them. The most active, most popular Presidents in history have in fact been the most damaging to individual rights.

And one of the most active presidents was FDR, who electrified rural America. Though he caused a lot of harm, that's was one of the things he got right. For instance the economy was already recovering from the Great Depression when he signed many of those socialist Second New Deal programs.

Falcon

Ummm, glycol bases systems with a heat exchanger are pretty common in areas that see freezing temperatures. They use propylene glycol, not ethylene glycol. A nice summary of solar hot water systems can be found here.

This assumes that your house is oriented properly and that your windows are large.

In northern climes, windows exposed to the north and to the prevailing winds tend to be small. Windows to the south tend to be big. You want that southern light and heat in winter. Home Design Basics

Curtains are an element in interior design. They have colors, they have folds, they have textures. That does not make for an efficient collector. Your wife may have other plans for that window.

http://www.homepower.com/

Excellent quality source for diy and complicated alternative energy projects, the website has a ton of free pdf downloads, and they're online membership is only $25 which gives access to way more information ....well worth it.

I would suggest HomePower Magazine as a resource.

This is a great site (you can also subscribe to their paper magazine) for the DIY types that want to use alternative methods to power their homes.

http://www.homepower.com/

Cheers,

Home Power is what you want to look at. http://www.homepower.com/home/

Each state can of course choose to do things differently, and what you need to look for is what rate you get from the power company when you sell it back vs what you pay for their power. Some states force the power company to pay the going rate for power, which means you sell to them when the price is high and use it at night when the rates are lower. But, if you generate more than you use, you usually loose.

Check your own states law on net metering here http://www.serconline.org/netmetering/stateactivity.html.

For those who are really serious about doing something with alternate power technologies I would suggest this site: http://www.homepower.com/home/

Also, don't forget about Home Power. I've been a subscriber for years, it's a great resource.

Check in old issues of Home Power Magazine. There were articles where people were setting up grid tie solar setups on a small scale safely without some of the expensive utility work. The articles were titled Gorilla Solar.

Been around for years, too.

http://www.homepower.com/home/

Ethanol is proven as a fuel. Brazil has proven ethanol made from sugarcane is feasible. Switchgrass however is a better raw material than sugarcane.

Windmills turned out to be bird-blenders are useless with still air.

Older technology windmills, with their faster blades, are a danger to birds however today's slower spinning wind gennies are safer.

The problem is that solar, wind, and biofuels are actually not half bad for "peak" load, but most folks can't tell the difference between base and peak load.

Many people are able to live comfortably Off the Grid with solar and/or wind gennies. "Homepower and Solar Today show how people do it.

http://www.homepower.com/

Homesteaders, survivalists, folks with second homes, and ecologically (if not always economically) conscious people have all been moving off-grid for a variety of reasons. Solar is one (but not the only) one of the ways that this can be accomplished.

A week's worth of autonomy is not at all unheard of. You mistake being able to STORE a week's worth of energy for the ability to GENERATE a week's worth of energy. Enough batteries for a week's worth of energy isn't cheap. But 3 days worth of batteries, a generator, and some creative reduction of loads is both reasonable, and feasible.

That said, I'll go out on a limb and guess that your average slashdotter probably has a higher level of electricity consumption than most.

Speak to a solar installer who has experience with battery backed systems and you will be told not to discharge below 50%

What I've heard is that battery banks should be oversized by 20%. An "extra" couple of batteries won't add much to the cost of a system.

Someone who lives off-grid and ignores their battery bank is in big trouble.

I agree, that's why most people should inter tie into the power system and not use batteries, it's also why most shouldn't use a composting toilet.

you might want to pick up a copy of HomePower magazine

Oh, I read "Homepower" along with "Backwoods Home", "Solar Today", and others.

> Environmental fuzzy save the birds you're killing from the reflection of your solar panels tax .2%

Reflection off the solar panels? A solar panel that is reflecting a significant amount of light isn't going to work as a solar panel very well. Killing birds? I've been working around solar panels for 10 years and I've never seen a dead bird around them.

Are you thinking of huge concentrating solar arrays out in the desert? These are relics from the past. The article is discussing small solar arrays on the roof or in the yard of a home or business. These are clean, low maintenance, long life-time items.

I would suggest you visit http://www.homepower.com/ for an introduction to solar.

Thanks,

-James Jarvis
APRS World, LLC

Perhaps you'd be interested in a more comprehensive analysis instead.

Home power has a cool PDF that describes how to create your own metal hydride based system. What's cool about their plans is they use bulk materials direct from the manufacturers and then show you how to prime your own system in a home lab if you're so inclined. I'd love to try it.

  Seems I read there was a similar system that is used in one version of the hydrogen powered car prototypes and they say they can get a hundred miles per tank on tanks about the size of a scuba tank.

Energy effeciency is a far better, cheaper, and more effective route than building nuke plants.

Despite what Cheney says efficiency is all three of these, better, cheaper, and more effective than bulding not just nuclear power plants but any power plant. I want to build a home Off the Grid and build a hybrid energy system of solar PVs and wind gennies, generators. First step though is building it as energy efficient as possible. Home Power is a good magazine with articles showing just how this can be done. Solar Today also has good articles on designing buildings and energy systems.

Would be a combination of renewables, and algae biomass driven "Air Blown Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle" power plants.

Better probably is using algae to produce hydrogen.

The first problem is that the CFLs only last 6 to 12 months in my house. I suppose I have pretty poor power, since I live in the country, but the incandescents seem to handle it much better. This failure rate adds significantly to the cost of CFLs, and makes mockery of those little marketing charts that show that CFLs last 7 times as long as incandescents.

There must be a problem with your wiring or power, I've been using CFLs for more than 15 years and in that tyme I've only replaced two of them when they burned out. The first was several years ago and the second a few months ago. Looking at my lights now I see I need to replace a third one, and I have 12 CFLs I use.

Even the new "instant-on" CFL's are not as fast as I am.

That's one of the two problems I've run into with CFLs, some take some minutes to fully come on. The other problem is in how CFLs affect photo shots.

I now feel that the solution is to move to individually generated solar or wind power. If I want to use more power, I obtain more solar panels. That way, any limitations are self-imposed, and the State does not have to tell me what kind of light bulbs I can or can't buy.

In a way I agree, I was designing a home I eventually wanted to build that was totally energy selfsufficient. Two of my fav mags are Homepower and Solar Today . I also think government, whether local, state, or national shouldn't be banning anything. However they can take steps to encourage energy efficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that you misread me. That's the renewable energy subsidy if we gave wind power the same 'subsidies' that are 'given' to nuclear power. This system was set up by the Price-Anderson act

Thanks for the link. I didn't know the industry paid for insurance. I went ahead and both saved it to my hdd and bookmarked it.

Many people have battery banks to store the energy their solar, wind, or hybrid systems generate.

Don't get me wrong, but while people do it, it's not globally economic to do so. Most people who do these systems do so to avoid the expense of running line power to them. Meanwhile they do things like run special refridgerators and use hydrocarbon method of accomplishing tasks such as heating their home, water, and cooking. For example, solar power will make sense much more quickly in Sunny california with high electricity costs than ND with it's cheap electricity.

First, North Dakota isn't good for solar as you say but the state is a great site for Wind Gennies. As is SD and Minneasota. MN, where I live now, generates several megawatts of power by Wind Gennies. While it may be mostly those living off the grid in the US who's doing it, it's not the only place solar panels and batteries are used. The same think is done in the third world. In Africa one or more NGOs are going into small villages where they setup solar panels and battery backups to power lights, radios, refrigs, small tvs, and such. The lights allow children to read and do homework for school while it's dark. The refrigs allow medicine to be stored, and the radios and tvs keep the people informed about the world. They are also used for educational purposes. The IEEE's Spectrum had an article about how some people started a business in South Asia building solar energy systems they then sold in remote locations and other places without electricity. The business created jobs manufacturing them, it also allowed those who bought a system to improve education as well as earn more money. One example was of a person who ran a repair shop, he was able to use lights so he could work when it was dark thus he increased his income. In another Spectrum article they described how a group of EEs went into a remote village; in Cambodia, Thailand, or Veit Nam, I don't recall which, and setup a transceiver with a tower for the antenna so they could have radio communications with the outside world. Using a "home built" PC and a bike converted into a generator, the group was able to offer the village internet access as well as voice radio. If they wanted to power the system all they had to do was pedal the bike. If they had setup a solar panel the bike could of been for backup.

Fact is you only have a few years to make back the investment because the batteries degrade, eventually needing replacement.

Sure, the batteries eventually need to be replaced, however batteries today last longer than the deep cycle batteries of yesteryear, and they're cheaper. Batteries can now have 10 year warranties with 20 year life expectancies. Here's one with 7 year replacement(pdf), and 3 year prorated warranty for a total of 10 years. As for solar panels, they can be rated 20 years or more. The same with the chargers.

Ok this site has batteries inteneded for renewable resources for sale. The L-16HC seems to be the best deal, for the amp-hours. It's a 6 volt battery that has 420 amp-hours of capacity. That's 2520 watt/hours. Divided by it's cost of $288, that's $114 per kw/hour of capacity, and it's only rated for 3-6 years of 20% daily discharge.

Oh, and the government will agree to only hold the wind power industry responsable for the first 10 billion dollars or so of damages

I know of no government guarranty to wind power such as this, can you provide a link?

You don't store electricity if you don't have to, because the storage systems are expensive.

Many people have battery banks to store the energy their solar, wind, or hybrid systems generate. Magazines like Home Power show just how people are doing it. Fact is is more and more people are going Off the Grid. And because they are off the grid they have to store energy in battery banks. It may seem expensive to setup such a system but the payback period can be as little as a few years, and that doesn't take in inflation, the cost of electricity going up. Once the system's cost has been recovered what's left is "free energy". Even the costs of maintance is less than the cost of electricity used if bought from the power company.

Therefore you need backup power capability, which substantially increases the costs of the 'green' power, because you essentially have to build double the capacity. Oh, and most standbys are either expensive NG or dirty coal.

This is basically true only on the grid, but off the grid is another matter.

Home Power Magazine publichs some good howto articles as does Solar Today .

Home Power magazine's website it's a great place to start. You can download free PDF files with practical information about solar power generators for home use.

http://www.homepower.com/

here's a project using solar heat to drive a ammonia absorption cycle freezer. [PDF]

Minimum cost occurs at about 80 feet, with windspeeds of 12.26 mph, producing an average 162.8 kWh/month worth $11.40. The tower at that height costs $2000. Payback time, ignoring interest, is 27.79 years. That's not economical.

A couple of things were left out. One is inflation, excepting maintainance, all of the costs are upfront and once paid for it doesn't need to be paid for again. Power from the grid though always raises. Say you pay $.10 pe kwh now, in ten years you may be paying $1. Okay ten tyme as much may be radical but the point is that if you gemerate your own electricity your energy was paid in the beginning and you don't pay more later but if you get your power from the grid you'll always be paying even when prices rise. The second think overlooked are rebates or tax credits. Governments, both federal and many states offer tax credits. DSIRE lists what is offered in each state in the US.

The biggest thing a person that's thinking of generating the power they use can do though is replacing the things that use power with energy effiecent replacements. Those 75 watt bulbs replace them with 15 watt cfls, compact florescent lights. The old washing machine and dryer or frig, replace them with a new one that has a good Energy Star rating. The idea being you want negawatts, energy conserved and not produced, rather than "new" methods to produce more megawatts of energy.

You're interested in installing a wind genie? Have you checked into Home Power magazine ? Also, though "Solar" is in the name, Solar Today also has some articles on wind genies.

I could not find the exact quote. I believe it was on the Department of Energy website, but my search skills are letting me a bit down right now. I did however find a number of related quotes which give an indication.

So what can you do? Unplug things or use power bars with "on/off" switches to operate appliances like VCR's and computers. Replace your light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. You can save 47 watts per bulb and they last for 5 years!! If the $10 or 15 per month that these changes can save you isn't impressive enough, this statistic might be: If Phantoms were not around, we could do without 7 or 8 nuclear power plants on this continent. This would save us a billion watts of power each!

On a more serious, grid-connected note, our nation wastes about 43 billion kilowatt-hours of energy on phantom loads yearly. This is enough electrical energy to totally provide the countries of Greece, Pery, and Vietnam for one year.

Around one nuclear power station in the UK has to be kept running in order to provide power for appliances not in use and on `standby' mode. Around 24 nuclear plants are kept running throughout the industrialised world for this purpose! Legislation is currently being considered by the EU.

If all TV and VCR in the US were plugged in only when they were used, it would save American nearly $1 billion dollars and about 9 million tonnes CO2.

Read this month's magazine from http://www.homepower.com/. Also you can read this: http://www.homepower.com/files/beginner/WindPowerB asics.pdf to get the basics of wind power.

In my opinion. If you're looking for financial benefits. Forget it. This isn't a buy it, set it up and forget it kind of thing. You also need to factor in the cost of maintenance. You'll need to start looking at the appliances you have. Does that old fridge you have need to go because its such a pig when it comes to electricity? How about that washer and dryer or the furnace that heats your home? Oh, and don't forget that air conditioner. Replace those filament bulbs with energy efficient ones too. Don't forget the cost of the batteries when they decide to give up. You think the wind is going to be there all the time? You'll need them for that and when the main power grid decides to take a break for a few hours.

Thinking about selling off the excess power you make to the utilities? Yea, sure. They don't pay you anything for that power except to maybe offset your bill when your meter runs backwards. Even then, most put a limit as to how much you can contrubute to the grid. I think here in California, Southern California Edison puts a limit of 10Kw (someone will correct me if they changed it). The average family home that hasn't taken steps to get energy efficient appliances and lighting uses 5Kw/h on up. If you get a system, only get a size that will generate what you need. Any excess is just waste and you won't make any money from it. Sorry but the power companies don't want you making a profit off of them.

If you want to do this because you'll feel better that you're consuming green energy and you're interested in the technology. Then go for it and you'll have the bragging rights that most people don't.

Just my 2 bits.

Read this month's magazine from http://www.homepower.com/. Also you can read this: http://www.homepower.com/files/beginner/WindPowerB asics.pdf to get the basics of wind power.

In my opinion. If you're looking for financial benefits. Forget it. This isn't a buy it, set it up and forget it kind of thing. You also need to factor in the cost of maintenance. You'll need to start looking at the appliances you have. Does that old fridge you have need to go because its such a pig when it comes to electricity? How about that washer and dryer or the furnace that heats your home? Oh, and don't forget that air conditioner. Replace those filament bulbs with energy efficient ones too. Don't forget the cost of the batteries when they decide to give up. You think the wind is going to be there all the time? You'll need them for that and when the main power grid decides to take a break for a few hours.

Thinking about selling off the excess power you make to the utilities? Yea, sure. They don't pay you anything for that power except to maybe offset your bill when your meter runs backwards. Even then, most put a limit as to how much you can contrubute to the grid. I think here in California, Southern California Edison puts a limit of 10Kw (someone will correct me if they changed it). The average family home that hasn't taken steps to get energy efficient appliances and lighting uses 5Kw/h on up. If you get a system, only get a size that will generate what you need. Any excess is just waste and you won't make any money from it. Sorry but the power companies don't want you making a profit off of them.

If you want to do this because you'll feel better that you're consuming green energy and you're interested in the technology. Then go for it and you'll have the bragging rights that most people don't.

Just my 2 bits.

A pure number crunch generally tells us that is not worth it but it is all the other benefits that backyard power grants that is at issue. Extra power can be sold back to the grid, or you have a backup power source in case the grid goes down again.

A great resource is Home Power http://www.homepower.com/ they have lots of articles discussing the pros and cons of all the various kinds of alternative power and building technology. (no affiliation) They go into it in far more depth then any of us can.

This will need quite a few nuclear reactors, solar panels + most of us will go to work by bicycle.

More nuclear power plants aren't really needed, as it is now there are techniques that will reduce the use of fossil fuels. A simple change in light bulbs reduces the electricity used in building. All of my bulbs are cfls, compact florence lights, that use 1/4 the power and provides the same amount of light as a regular incandescent light, of course the light from them has a different effect on film than incandescent lights. New appliances are also more energy efficient and can be made even more so. For instance look at refrigerators and freezers. On most the compressor and motor is in the back on the bottom. However both compressors and motors create heat and heat rises, so when they operate the heat goes through what is being cooled thus requiring more energy to be used. Some companies, like Sunfrost manufacture refrigerators and freezers with the compressor and motors on top, so they are more energy efficient. More energy efficient tips can be picked up through magazines like Solar Today , Home Power , and Natural Home and Garden as well as several others. Those who live off the grid by generating the power they use use these techniques as well as others. Many other things can be done commercially and industrially to reduce power needs as well. Natural Capitalism documents case studies of how different businesses have reduced their energy as well as raw material needs.