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.'"

8 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. Quit doubting it based on cost. by Lethyos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are whining about how it costs a half-million dollars. It is so expensive because of low volume. We need early adopters like this guy to start the ball rolling. Once more people buy into this form of energy production, the cheaper it will become.

    --
    Why bother.
  2. Only expensive for now by tarlos25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. I guess the "early adopter" price is $0.5M by Proteus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Proof of concept - cost is a side issue by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Proof of concept - cost is a side issue by Stewie241 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what really needs to be looked at is the OVERALL cost. What I mean by this, is: What are the environmental costs of producing the panels? What byproducts does this produce (i.e. another poster mentioned product of hydrogen vehicle... H20 - on a small scale this has negligible effect, on a large scale, what would this do?)? What happens to the panels when they eventually degrade? Is this safe waste? I don't know the answers... just raising the questions. Ian

  5. Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >the reason so few people are green

    I think the reason is the one you suggest lower down in your post - The cost.

    I should really improve my insulation, but don't. Why? Because there's no payback in natural gas savings.

    I could install solar heat, but I don't. Why? No payback.

    I could buy a hybrid car. I don't. Why? No payback

    ...so I do the things I can afford: Recycle, fix dripping taps, take the bus when I can. I realize there are often higher-purpose reasons than cost savings, but many people simply can't *afford* to be green.

  6. Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I pay an average of $150/month for electricity, $50/month for natural gas, and $200/month for gasoline.
    Today you pay that rate. Don't assume that energy costs won't continue to rise over the next 10-20 years.
    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.