Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home
skyhawker writes "Yahoo! News is running an article about a New Jersey home that uses solar power to provide 100% of its energy needs, including fuel for the owner's hydrogen fuel cell-powered automobile. From the article: 'Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell. In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 percent more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter -- when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand -- to make electricity in the fuel cell.'"
Hmm?
And this is the reason so few people (including me) are "green".
Deleted
Until you learn that the rig cost 5x what he would have spent on energy over his entire lifetime even though it will probably wear out in ten years. Also, now that his insurance company has read the story and knows he has a big ol' tank of hydrogen in his house he id uninsured, and uninsurable. Additionally, if anything ever does go wrong, his neighbors are sure to sue him into financial ruin.
Good job showing everybody how infeasible this kind of thing is though!
Greeat. It only cost a half a million bucks to avoid a
$100/month bill...
People are whining about how it costs a half-million dollars. It is so expensive because of low volume. We need early adopters like this guy to start the ball rolling. Once more people buy into this form of energy production, the cheaper it will become.
Why bother.
Of course it will be expensive for the early adopters. But as solar panels mature, and more energy independence options become available, it will be much more economically feasible. The first people to do this don't do it for the monetary savings (or if they do, they're wrong), they do it to make a statement that it can be done.
It has been possible to do this since solar cells were invented. It was not possible to get a real break even versus standard energy sources "back then" in the 60's, nor is it possible to get to break even now today in the next 25 years, and I submit from the article my evidence:
"Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about $4,000 a year when its $100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment. That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government. Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination."
So what is new here?
Yeah, at $0.5M US, it's a steep price to pay just to be free of utility bills, or just to be "green". But please don't forget that it still has value.
;-)
This early adopter is proving that you *can* be self-sufficient using solar energy. That's a big deal. And, if a people -- and more importantly, organizations -- start seeing solar energy as having potential, more people will fund research into improving the technology and making it cheaper. At least, that's the hope.
Early adopters help drive the price of technology down, so don't be so quick to judge this guy's choice -- he's helping to make solar power more available to the masses, in his own small way.
Besides, in being the first, he'll probably make back his $500K in promotional considerations and/or the lecture circuit.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Sure it's not cost effective. Prototypes and one-offs rarely are.
As a proof-of-concept, though, it's highly successful. This guy is demonstrating, not just hand-waving, that one can be entirely energy self-sufficient through solar power, even with the crappy efficiency of current mass produced photovoltaic panels.
Find a way to increase the efficiency and/or drop the price of the panels (and H2 storage system, fuel cells, etc) and it starts to look really attractive. More so if you want to build somewhere way off-grid. And without some of the attendant problems of a windmill.
The next time somebody argues that you can't live off-grid just on solar power, you can point to this guy. Then the argument comes down to cost-effectiveness, which depends on a lot of other factors.
-- Alastair
"But had the same money been used to, say, help elderly people on fixed incomes heat their houses?"
Then 90% of it would have been misappropriated and used for personal projects of the administrators, and the other 10% would have gone to people who didn't really need it, but felt they were entitled to it.
Consider this an investment in science. It's expensive, and rarely pays out immediately. They probably learned quite a bit about how to manufacture and install these items through the mistakes found in the process. You won't see the improvements immediately, but you will within your lifetime. And no, I don't know what they'll be yet. I'm not psychic enough. Some research doesn't have a specific goal.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I think you should include Oil-War Casualties in your calculations:
Perhaps like
It will only take 415 years and 12,000 US dead and maimed soldiers to pay for the oil-related energy.
I'm not sure, you do the math.
AIK
Move to a neighborhood without a draconian HOA.
Seriously, I hate those things. A bunch of busybody housewives with nothing better to do than to stick their noses in other people's business. I'd rather deal with having a neighbor with a rusted-out trans am in his yard than have to deal with some harpy telling me my grass is 1/4" too long. I own the damn property, I don't need some jackass telling me it has to look exactly like everyone else's.
Generating electricity in cleaner ways is nice but not nearly as efficient or green as simply using less. Production is a very small part of the problem. Consumption is what we have to deal with.
From TFA: the cost of the installation was about $500,000, including about $50,000 of lead acid batteries.
I would suggest that the environmental impact of building this house, and recycling the consumables far outweighs the lowered energy consumption.
Just recycling an estimated 1 ton of toxic, heavy metal, lead a year (assuming 10 ton installation with life expectancy of 10 years), has a big environmental impact.
Solar panel manufacturing also consumes a lot of resources, and end up not beeing so clean overall.
A $500,000 investment would probably give a thousand times better ROI if it was spent on pollution reduction in india or china, or to save rainforest.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I'd want to shake your hand.
I have an eight year old son. When he reaches draft age, I don't want him over in the Middle East fighting for "our way of life" -- at least if "our way of life" is just code for "unrestrained consumption of petroleum".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If your going to include production for solar panels you need to remember that fossil fuels don't exactly jump out of the ground and into your furnace. Strip mines, refineries, natural gas production all have a significant environmental cost.
The cost is actually much higher, you should calculate what the value of that 100,000 dollars would be after it was in a solid investment for 25 years.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Not only that, but if you compare how much pollution was created in the manufacture, and eventual disposal of the equipment, especially some of the toxins that may be in the solar cells and batteries, vs how much actual pollution could be accredited to production of the "grid" electricity from a modern, clean coal or even nuclear plant, he probably is significantly harming the environment as well. FTA it says that the $500k cost includes certain donations including $50,000 worth of batteries from Exide . They estimate the lifespan of the house and technologies at 25 years, but those batteries are only going to last 5-8 years before needing replacement, and they have very nasty stuff in them, whatever technology they are based on (probably gelcell). Talk about pollution intensive and not totaling all costs.
Also from the article, even if they could get the installation cost down to $100k, and if all the equipment lasts 25 years with no additional costs for maintenance, that is $4k per year in costs vs $1.5 per year in savings, which is the average family's annual energy cost in the U.S.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Over what timespan?
Assuming a lifespan of 40 years, I'd guess that it is less polluting to use solar cells than to use fossil fuels. Furthermore, if solar cells were leased instead of sold (providing a long term revenue stream for solar energy companies), old cells could be remanufactured by the suppliers at a fraction of the original environmental and energy costs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Um.. considering that there is no draft now, and no draft for the foreseeable future, I'd say you have your panties in a bunch over nothing.
If he wants to sign up when he is old enough, that is his choice. You are just another overbearing, overprotective parent who is letting your hatred of Bush blind you to reality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some states also offer incentives. I live in California where the rebate was at $2.60 per installed watt (which is enough to cover roughly a third of the total installed price) last year. They've messed with the rules this year to base it on actual power generated, rather than expected energy output ... but it is still a pretty hefty chunk of change.
While some might think that this goes against the usual USA plan of tax breaks for Hummers, it still fits in with the Republican philosophy of tax breaks for the rich ... only home owners with enough spare cash (or borrowing capacity) can take advantage.
Last I checked pretty much all parents want to keep kids out of any situation they could be killed in. I don't know a single parent that wants their child fighting in any war. How does this make the guy blinded by hatred for Bush? He just wants his kid to grow old and instead of getting shot. I seriously doubt that anyone saw the last draft coming 10 years in advance which is when his 8 year old would be eligible. If the "war on terror" continues for 10 years a draft would be more likely than today. Especially since the armies numbers for registration are still dropping below what they need. He didn't say there was a draft or there was going to be one. You could argue it was implied but that would be making an assumption and we all know what assuming does. He didn't mention Bush or even the government so how do you know that he hates Busch? You could assume but again not a good choice. I am not opposed to bashing someone but if you do it at least make some sense. It seems to me the only one blinded here is you. I won't make any ASSumptions why though. I'll leave that to people like you.
Back on topic. This is great I hope this gets other people in projects like this. Imagine a whole city powered by the sun and hydrogen! We could leave pretty green in a short amount of time if the government would support projects like this. Not necessarily with dollars but tax breaks on the people that use it and tax breaks on the equipment to make it happen. Say no sales tax on solar panels and other stuff needed for things like this. I for one can't wait for the day I can install a setup like this and tell the local power company to bug off. I currently leave in an apartment so it is not possible right now.
WTF?
That is an interesting project you've got going there, and if significant numbers of people start installing your system then the country will see a decrease in the amount of fuel used for power generation. However, it does not get you off the grid, and if more and more people start using your system it will drive the cost of power up.
You claim that the transmission and distribution of that electricity must rely on accurate operation and proper maintenance of its lines. But what happens when demand exceeds delivery capacity, or when lines fail. Your system does nothing to remedy this. Indeed your system relies on that infrastructure being there. There is no local storage of the power generated: the utility - in effect - stored the power that was produced by your REnU. You're selling power to the utility during the day, and buying it back at night (and in cloudy weather). So, instead of being a paying customer, they are a money hole. Not only does the power company still have to spend the same amount of money maintaining the infrastructure, they also have to pay their former customer. Costs go up, revenue goes down. Solution: raise the price of power.
Not only that, but you're still vulnerable to power outages. Sure, you'll have power during the day, when it's sunny, but you'll have no power at night when you need it.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll find me a nice little waterfall to live by, and stick a water wheel in it.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I wonder if its that simple.
I think shale will be harvested in the future.
But the problem perhaps - may be that as long as "Cheap Oil (tm)" exists, then it is very important to have access to cheap oil in order to globally competitive. or example, if China were to be getting "Cheap Oil tm" and the US were to try to compete economically or militarily with an economy powered by "uncheap oil (cl)" it would place the US at a long term disadvantage.
So in a sense, regardless of the cost, it is a competitive problem if cheap oil exists and a county is excluded from using it.
(my pinion is that we should use more renew ables to improve our economy and solve this problem - but I doubt that is the position of the administration. clearly the dems are in favor of more renewables. We'll see)
AIK
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.
You didn't RTFA.
First of all, there is much, much, more to this system than the panels.
Second, even the article concedes that this solution is significantly more expensive than the costs of energy consumption it is replacing in a worst case comparison. Learn, think, and then speak. Not the other way around please.
oddly enough you might find that non HOA properties in some areas of the country (such as vegas) are selling for more than non HOA properites....
I have no problem with the rules in my own HOA, just that the managing agent has attempted to apply rules that don't exist (and are most likely from other properities they manage) on several occasions. (namely condo rules and I live in a townhouse.)
I'm involved in my own HOA and run one of the committies, I am looking to get out of my home because I am sick of being harrassed and having the HOA back down and admit they are wrong in that no such CC&R exisits. I would gladly pay a 10% premiumn to not be harassed.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
"t *should* be a painful, daily reminder to the practitioners -- like how some religious fasting is supposed to remind its practitioners of humility, etc"
Congratulations on setting the conservation movement back 1500 years.
If you're going to turn it into a religion, then it defeats the purpose. By all means, worship at the alter of self-flagellation, but don't think it makes you morally superior. It just means that instead of workship Jesus/Budda/Allah, you worship conservation.
Everyone else will try to figure out the more viable option of working with society to reduce the amount damage done by man to make sure the human race survives for the foreseeable future. We don't want to live in mud huts living like Gilligans Island because it serves some sort of bizarre Gaia worship that you enjoy.
We just want to make sure our cars, our big screen TV's, etc are as efficient as practical.
The key concept is that it's a general principle. We tend towards the use of all available capacity of a resource. Be it oil, water, energy, roads whatever. It's why btw, we won't end up with perpetual gridlock in the future, no matter what we do to our roads.
Deleted
The "war" we are in now is a generational struggle between cultures, like the Cold War. Three is no end in sight.
Nobody in his right mind thinks the troops have signed on for a struggle that is going to last for decades.
If you want to be legalistic, then the only declared war was over Sadaam's WMD. That's long over. We're dicking around in a conflict now. If it were warfare, we'd be winning. It's not and we're not. What it is is nation building. Our guys mostly aren't fighting battles, they're trying to police a country full of hostile inhabitants, a task they're not trained or equipped to do.
Technically, I'm not arguing that the President can't use stop loss. What I'm arguing is that it is morally wrong to use a clause that's there for dealing with a state of war to turn the military into a police force.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.