Switching To Solar Power — Six Months Later

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Switching To Solar Power — Six Months Later

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @03:15AM from the it-burns-my-eyes dept.

ThinSkin writes "Slashdot readers may remember an article regarding ExtremeTech's Loyd Case's experiences with solar power for the home after one month of usage. During that time six months ago, it sure seemed like a great deal, but the tables have turned significantly once winter approached. While it's no surprise solar power generation is expected to dwindle during the winter, Loyd compares solar power data of the last six months to determine if solar power is still worth the time and money."

13 of 591 comments (clear)

$400 a month? by Gothmolly · 2009-01-14 03:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Who the hell uses that much electric power?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:$400 a month? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-14 03:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You ask how he uses $400 a month in electricity? His tech is EXTREME!
2. Re:$400 a month? by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-01-14 03:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Look at the kWh, he's using 1,635kWh per month. While it is high, it's not surprising if his house is especially large and he has a heat-pump. Those things are notoriously inefficient if the temperature drops below 40 degrees F. It getting that cold should be rare in silicon valley, but it does happen.
  
  What I found interesting was that, while December was bad for solar power, he says:
  
  My total power consumption cost for the last six months is $389.39--less than my utility bill for January, 2008.
  Basically, his solar power does what it's supposed to more often than not. But then again, we've always known that about solar power, the big problem with solar is the large up-front capital cost of installing it.
  
  (Or other strange things, like my mother just moved into a retirement community and her housing rules say solar panels are not allowed because they're unsightly, but directTV antennas and satellite dishes are just fine. One must have priorities I suppose. Television is obviously more important than renewable energy.)
  
  --
  Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
3. Re:$400 a month? by dfdashh · 2009-01-14 03:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here's why, from his initial article:
  
  Our power usage is unusually high for a typical, four person nuclear family. A big part of that is because I have a PC lab and network in the basement. Both my wife and I work out of the house much of the time, with her time almost 100% in the home office. Plus, we have two teenage girls and a pretty beefy HDTV and home audio setup in the family room.
  
  --
  df -h /my/head
4. Re:$400 a month? by Andy+Dodd · 2009-01-14 03:54 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "but directTV antennas and satellite dishes are just fine"
  After a couple of legal battles, there are some federal laws that say that banning antennas and dishes in a housing development is not permitted. Many developments try to do it anyway but you can fight it if you know the right laws.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
5. Re:$400 a month? by drunkennewfiemidget · 2009-01-14 03:54 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I live in Canada. The weather today is -25c or so. My power bill never exceeds $46/CAD a month when I have a window AC unit going in the summer, and my gas bill never exceeds $70/mo.
  The # of kWh/mo he's using would suggest to me he'd be a lot better served putting the time and energy into replacing bulbs with CFLs, turning off computers that don't need to be on, and buying higher efficiency appliances rather than those solar panels. .. or both, of course.
6. Re:$400 a month? by drunkennewfiemidget · 2009-01-14 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The house I currently live in was powered with solar panels here in Southern Ontario before I bought it. The guy who sold it to me took the panels with him. They did just fine at consolidating his hydro to the point where he was paying almost NOTHING to the power company. They're not worthless at all. A large investment that might take longer out here to recoup costs, but definitely not worthless.
7. Re:$400 a month? by SatanicPuppy · 2009-01-14 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  His point is that you should try to live carbon-neutral, not that you should live like a caveman. He pays a premium for his power so that a portion of it has to come from renewable resources, and he puts money in to carbon offset funds. That's more than I do, and my bill is 1/10th of his.
  
  --
  ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
8. Re:$400 a month? by BCGlorfindel · 2009-01-14 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Clearly, Al Gore should be living in a small, average house, or perhaps an apartment if that more matches the average person, just so he can be close to the national average of electricity use regardless of his actual net worth or funds.
  Oh wait, that's stupid.
  If he's gonna promote agreements like the Kyoto Accord then yes, he should. If he expects the wealthy countries to be more like the average why shouldn't wealthy individuals?
  It's not stupid, it's hypocritical.
9. Re:$400 a month? by hey! · 2009-01-14 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He does fly by regular carrier. He does not own a private jet.
  That's not to say that he never, under any circumstances, flies in a private plane. When he does he buys carbon offsets -- not ideal of course, but the best you can do under the circumstances.
  One of the Achilles' heels of conservative ideology is the inability to distinguish between practicality and expediency. It's always more expedient to travel by private plane. It's sometimes practical.
  Cindy McCain got a lot of heat by saying that private plane was the only way to get around Arizona. The liberal reaction was the same kind of BS you're spouting here. Of course, she didn't literally mean you couldn't get from Phoenix to Flagstaff without flying, but as public figures the McCains do have to do a great deal of travel over a rather large state. As a Senator, John McCain spends most of his time in Washington, and if flying in a private plane means he gets to see more constituents, it's a sensible and pragmatic choice because it maximizes his productivity.
  It's like the difference between driving a one ton pickup truck because you're a rancher and need to get feed out to your cattle through the snow, and driving the same kind of truck as a commuter vehicle. Environmentalists don't think it is morally wrong for a rancher to drive an F320. They don't think it's morally wrong for a cement truck to have a 400 horsepower engine and get 6MPG. Individuals commuting in a vehicle that got 6MPG would be a different thing.
  As an environmentalist, I'm not even against sports cars. I'm just against sports cars as commuter vehicles. If you enjoy driving your Ferrari Enzo on the track at 8MPG, that's fine by me. But maybe you might want to look at an Audi A5 as your regular commuting vehicle.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
fixed angle panels are sub-optimum by RichMan · 2009-01-14 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Who ever installed the panels mounted them directly flat on the roof. That is bad.
They need to be angled for the best sun during the time the power need is greatest. Ideally they would be adjustable semi-annually/quarterly/monthly for the best angle. And if fixed would be biased toward the point of worst number of sun days and power need.
Doing a suboptimal installation and not accounting for sun angle is not a good installation and should be perform at a fraction of potential output.
A sun-tracking system is better by msbmsb · 2009-01-14 04:05 · Score: 5, Informative

MAKE:blog has some descriptions of some DIY sun-trackers to move the panel with the sun during the day.
Shh... by conureman · 2009-01-14 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't tell anyone, but there's a tab on the first page that's labeled "print". I don't get to wait for ads and pictures to load, but it has the text.

--
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.