Slashdot Mirror


The Myth of Going Off the Power Grid

Lasrick writes: Dawn Stover uses Elon Musk's announcement that Tesla will soon be unveiling plans for a battery that could power your home as a starting point to explore the idea that "going off the grid" is going to solve climate change. "The kind of in-house energy storage he is proposing could help make renewables a bigger part of the global supply. But headlines announcing that a Tesla battery 'could take your home off the grid' spread misconceptions about what it takes to be self-sufficient — and stop global warming." Stover worries that shifting responsibility for solutions to climate change from governments to individuals creates an 'every-man-for-himself' culture that actually works against energy solutions and does little to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, "smart grid" technology would be much more efficient: "With a smarter grid, excess electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines could be distributed to a network of on-the-grid home and car batteries. Some utilities have also experimented with using home water heaters as an economical substitute for batteries."

281 comments

  1. Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Putting energy in a battery throws away 30% to 40% right off the top in charge and discharge inefficiencies as shown above. If you have access to the grid, it makes no economical sense to give that up! Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient and virtually unlimited whereas storing energy in batteries is limited and not only throws away 30% of your energy, but also:"

    Source: http://www.aprs.org/off-grid-maybe.html

    1. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those calculations do not factor-in utility companies that will screw you over if you're attempting to do home-solar or other local power generation.

      If you manage to keep the utilities from imposing excessive fees then I agree. The only way to do that though is to divorce the service connection from the usage cost, and they don't want to do that.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Your just ignoring the fact that if Edison could put a meter on the sun then Solar would be fantastic.

    3. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, grid transmission is not 100% efficient, nor is it unlimited in any sense excerpt the abstract. Its about 93-96% with the current grid.

      Vastly more efficient than battery, I'll grant, but let's try to stay accurate.

    4. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vastly more efficient than battery, I'll grant, but let's try to stay accurate.

      Modern Li-ion batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 85%. Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer. They are actually in the same ballpark.

      But TFA is just stupid. The tiny handful of first-world survivalist kooks trying to go off the grid are not what is causing global warming. The massive expansion of coal burning in India is a somewhat bigger problem, by many orders of magnitude. Maybe we should focus on that instead. Solar-to-battery would be a good solution to many Indian and African villages that are not on the grid at all.

    5. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the fine article is chasing a straw man, a very important one.

      Why care about the real world?

    6. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm interested in how Musk is going to ramp up battery manufacture, as the current Li-ion techniques actually do have major ecological and environmental impact during the mining, refining and manufacturing processes. As a result, placing solar-to-battery in each Indian village will release huge amounts of toxins at the start, and then again after the panels/batteries wear down and are no longer operating efficiently.

      I see wave generators and wind turbines as being a bigger part of the solution here, but at some point these are going to have to scale up so large that they'll impact our weather systems.

      And yes, TFA is just stupid.

    7. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer.

      Seeing as how the losses are basically per 'step' on the grid, peer to peer sharing would normally mean that you're sharing power with your neighbors - IE 100 feet away and no transformers, not many miles and lots of transformers and other switching equipment.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the losses are basically per 'step' on the grid, peer to peer sharing would normally mean that you're sharing power with your neighbors - IE 100 feet away and no transformers, not many miles and lots of transformers and other switching equipment.

      If your neighborhood is sunny, and the other side of town is under a passing cloud, it is more likely that you will be sharing power over a fairly long distance, where there will be significant resistive losses as well as voltage conversion loses.

    9. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Solar is also doomed because eventually it will have to scale up to the point where enclosing the entire sun simply isn't enough.

      Wind would buy as a bit of breathing room before we'd have to worry about significantly affecting weather patterns.

    10. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Cramer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "grid" doesn't store energy, it delivers it -- and nowhere near 100% efficiency either. Power is generated "on demand". While there are spots around the country/globe where utilities experiment with storing excess production -- flywheels, exotic batteries, thermal wells, etc., it is a very rare exception.

    11. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The grid is fine in higher density populated area. As you go more rural it makes spence to have off grid options.
      Power outages can last for days where you are waiting for help, but all the people are working to get the denser arias first.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Modern Li-ion batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 85%.

      And some of the high-power, super-fast-charge Li-* batteries coming into production have efficiencies in the high 90s.

      They have to. One of the limits on the charging and discharging rate of the batteries is the inefficiency. That lost energy doesn't just disappear. It turns into HEAT, INSIDE the battery. If you can dump 3/4 of a high-capacity battery's capacity into it in a couple minutes, without melting it down or setting it on fire, it's because the battery didn't turn much of the energy into heat. (Ditto on pulling it back out quickly.) That means it went into chemical storage, rather than loss.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    13. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tiny handful of first-world survivalist kooks trying to go off the grid are not what is causing global warming.

      I'm not a survivalist kook by any stretch. I have a suburban home with two cars and two kids with a swimming pool. I'm pretty average as far as American middle class goes and I'm giving some serious consideration to pulling the plug on the grid. A battery and photovoltaic system powerful enough to supply 100% of my power needs (even central air in 100-degree summers) is under $30,000. Name me anywhere you could deposit $30,000 and have a return of $200 or more per month as you would by having no power bill.

    14. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar is also doomed because eventually it will have to scale up to the point where enclosing the entire sun simply isn't enough.

      That's unlikely to happen before the Sun becomes a red giant and boils off Earth's oceans. An array of photovoltaics only 100 miles square would supply the entire planet with its total electrical power needs.

    15. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Modern Li-ion batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 85%. Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer. They are actually in the same ballpark.

      I wondered about that quote as well but the article was including limited battery capacity versus virtually unlimited grid capacity. At the end of the day when the batteries are fully charged, excess solar power cannot be saved unlike with a grid-tie solution.

    16. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly, the problem is simply the sheer number of people. The fact of reality is that we don't need 7 billion people. The vast majority of that 7 billion are nothing more than "users". They simply churn the resources we have and contribute little towards the advancement of the human species in culture, science, or otherwise. In 100 years from now, when all us are dead, and a completely different group of humans is inhabiting the Earth, no one will care that this vast majority of humans ever even existed. The only ones that we will ever care existed are the researchers, engineers, artists, writers, etc. The regional manager of a restaurant chain will never be remembered beyond a couple generations of their own family. And the number of regional managers required to support a society that can spend luxury time on science and art is less than we are currently spending. Look at the percentage of federal spending on R&D. It has been steadily declining for decades; at least halving in the process. Meaning that we could double the percentage (say from 2% to 4%), and have the population from 7 billion to 3.5 billion, and we'd still have the same amount of R&D output.

    17. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Hillary Clinton about cattle futures. She can point you at opportunities that will provide a much better ROI.

    18. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Denser melodies should be given higher priority - the airy fluffy ones just lack artistic depth.

    19. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's about an 8% return. It's OK, but not stellar. The S&P 500 does better most years, and it's not that much better than 10 year corporate bonds. And does it include the cost of disposal of those batteries every 7-10 years?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Solar is also doomed because eventually it will have to scale up to the point where enclosing the entire sun simply isn't enough.

      Good lord, are you on crack? How do you think Planet Earth handled its energy needs before Homo Sapiens got here?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    21. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Well, burning a lump of coal in a power station also throws away a lot of the stored energy in the coal - accumulated conversion and transmission losses make the grid somewhat less than 100% efficient.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    22. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by dwywit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not a kook - it's just going to cost me more to connect to the grid than it costs to make and store solar power.

      Last time I upgraded the system, in order to qualify for a subsidy, I had to get a quote to connect to the grid - which ends about 600 metres up the road. It was going to cost ~AUD$30K, plus tree-clearing costs, to get a standard domestic service, i.e. single-phase 230VAC, not including air-conditioning (air-con requires higher amperage supply). The solar upgrade (new 1320ah batteries, additional 960W of PV, installation and controllers, etc) was just over $20K.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    23. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on something called a "Dyson sphere" and the reasons for pursuing one. Yes, you can get to the point where you have to worry about the supply of solar power, but by then the alternatives may well be things like matter antimatter reactors or total conversion systems. And people may even have made it to another star.

      Remember, the energy density of pretty much every matter based source of power is the same, from a certain point of view... E=mc^2.

    24. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Smart controllers can switch supply to a different load when they detect the batteries are "full". You can switch to a water pump, for example. My controller will even charge a second battery bank, if I had one.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    25. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by hey! · · Score: 1

      That's only if you don't count the unused solar energy as waste.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The fact of reality is that we don't need 7 billion people.

      This just in: 6,999,999,999 people say the fact of the reality is they don't need YOU.

    27. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by sjames · · Score: 1

      HAve a look at 'line loss'. The grid isn't 100% either. A lot depends on how local the net demand is.

    28. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. In two generations or less we're going to have an Earth population of less than 700 millions. We'll have more energy and resources and plenty of luxury time. The leisure society will be a reality... Just not for you.

    29. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by itzly · · Score: 1

      Solar is also doomed because eventually it will have to scale up to the point where enclosing the entire sun simply isn't enough.

      If you can limit the population, and the energy use per capita, energy requirement will reach an upper limit.

    30. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Your just ignoring the fact that if Edison could put a meter on the sun then Solar would be fantastic.

      Well, since solar power is measured in W/m^2/y, just put a solar tax on real estate, with grid power consumption as a deductible.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    31. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You are wrong by many, many orders of magnitude.

    32. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Solar is also doomed because eventually it will have to scale up to the point where enclosing the entire sun simply isn't enough.

      Enough for what? A quick back-of-envelope calculation seems to suggest total solar output works for 1W/10kg of nonsolar matter in the Solar System. That's enough to, for example, nanomotors and slow microchips, or several classes of living organisms for that matter.

      We are currently having problems because we've used stored energy that's running out to boost our output for a given technological level, and consequently haven't learned to pace ourselves, not because there's an inherent shortage of energy in the Solar System.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by pehrs · · Score: 1

      The massive expansion of coal burning in India is a somewhat bigger problem, by many orders of magnitude. Maybe we should focus on that instead. Solar-to-battery would be a good solution to many Indian and African villages that are not on the grid at all.

      And here you do the classic mistake of assuming that the big problem when it comes to carbon emissions is the third world. It is not. Not in absolute numbers, and especially not in numbers related to the population. The BIG problem is the US, which combines absurdly high carbon emissions with a big population. If I recall correctly US emits about 3 times as much carbon as India does in absolute numbers, and about 12 times as much per capita(!).

      If there is any place where we could easily and cheaply cut carbon emissions it is in the US. Why try to reduce the emissions of a village in India, when a single household in the US emits as much carbon and also have a much better economic position to pay for any additional cost?

    34. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if you start speaking like that, why do you think artists are necessary? it doesn't make sense.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    35. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The massive expansion of coal burning in India is a somewhat bigger problem, by many orders of magnitude. Maybe we should focus on that instead.

      This is insane. The US has historically been the most polluting country on earth, by industry, consumers and oil wars, and snubbed environmental treaties like a bunch of psychopaths. Your economy has been built on polluting. And now you want to point to rising economies? Economies like India and China already have the disadvantage of not rising during peak oil but after that. I can't believe you point to India. The hypocrisy is astounding.

    36. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by stomv · · Score: 1

      > Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer.

      Methinks your second statement is dead wrong. If my neighbor is producing more electricity with his PV than he's using right now, it flows on the local distribution wire 100' from his house to the street, 100' down the street, and 100' to my home. That 300' of relatively little electricity a very short distance has virtually no line losses. You save both on the transmission and on the vast majority of the distribution losses.

      Now, at some point, the peer-to-peer gets saturated without distributed storage because most surplus happens at the same time of day in the same neighborhood. But, with the exception of parts of Hawai'i, this is not yet an issue anywhere in tUSA.

    37. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Pallas+Athena · · Score: 1

      I can't deny that 'eventually' it might not be enough at some point in time - but at any point within the foreseeable future you are _way_ wrong. In fact, the sun produces about 1.2×10^34 J per year, where the total energy consumption on earth was, in 2008, just 474x10^18 J. So, before we would need to enclose the sun entirely, we would need to consume about 10.000.000.000.000 times as much as we do now...

    38. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wind and wave systems will never be so large that they impact the weather, sorry, that assumption is idiotic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer.
      That is for the total energy produced and the total "cost" of transporting (not distributing) it.

      If you have a peer to peer power grid, the loss is basically zero.

      I suggest to google for "Ohms law".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by pepty · · Score: 1

      Grid transmission has losses of about 7% from the power station to you, but will likely be higher if it is peer-to-peer.

      I'm not following. Why would peer to peer, with all of the electricity produced and consumed within the same area (short trip at low voltage), be less efficient than electricity from the power station (long trip at high voltage plus short trip at low voltage). Conversion losses at the grid tie?

    41. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      The tiny handful of first-world survivalist kooks trying to go off the grid are not what is causing global warming.

      I'm not a survivalist kook by any stretch. I have a suburban home with two cars and two kids with a swimming pool. I'm pretty average as far as American middle class goes and I'm giving some serious consideration to pulling the plug on the grid. A battery and photovoltaic system powerful enough to supply 100% of my power needs (even central air in 100-degree summers) is under $30,000. Name me anywhere you could deposit $30,000 and have a return of $200 or more per month as you would by having no power bill.

      So you have a 150 month payback? 12.5 years? In that period there is undoubtly going to be maintenance costs: replacing the battery bank for sure, and potentially unexpected failure of PV panels, or charging / inverting equipment. Further the longer you go past the 12.5 year break even point, the higher the chance of component failure.

    42. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on! You really think that a random engineer that took part in "human advancement"
      project will be remembered a few generations ahead? A random researcher that studied the properties
      of a certain class of materials? Maybe a hundred peoples per field per century are really remembered. And
      that number is insignificant compared to 3.5 billion.

      And what do you mean with *we don't need*. Need for what? What are the poorly specified goals of humanity(?)
      that you are talking about?

    43. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      But how soon will we see claims that windfields affect the weather? Remember, any usage of energy by man is evil somehow.

    44. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      " The fact of reality is that we don't need 7 billion people"

      Notice how Greens ascribe no value to incremental human brains, nor to any civilization they may collectively produce. Small wonder that they are always looking for final solutions to the human being question.

    45. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by rachit · · Score: 2

      8% tax free return is pretty damn good. S&P 500 does not do 8% consistently, no way in hell.

      It's OK, but not stellar.

      And since it is solar power, it is also clearly stellar.

    46. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Idou · · Score: 1

      Ah, Slashdot. . . News for Nerds and the financially challenged. . . There are some very basic problems with your comparison, like:
      -WHICH years does the S&P "mostly" do better than 8%? For instance, an investment lasting from 2000 ~ 2007 would have net you NEGATIVE return in terms of real dollars. . . You are comparing investments that have completely different levels of risk (Finance 101 fail).
      -Again, corporate bonds? Most batteries have an extensive warranty period, so this investment could be structured as something similar to a risk free investment (~0% right now). . . .
      -Large used batteries usually have a significant salvage value.

      Not trying to be harsh on you, but the modding certainly shows the deficiencies of the Slashdot community when it comes to finance related discussions. . . What is the point of being a smart Geek if you throw your money away due to lack of finance basics?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    47. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Adding more batteries increases the backup time but once they are charged, the same situation develops with the power from the solar array being unused unless as you point out it is wasted on an auxiliary load which is not going to be common. A grid-tie solution without batteries is always going to be more economical unless battery cost decreases unrealistically or grid power costs increases unrealistically. One significant advantage of batteries of course is the availability of backup power when the power grid is down or unavailable.

      I remember when I looked into this that grid-tie inverters with battery backup are available. Once the batteries are charged, they divert excess power to the grid and I believe the batteries are only used in the event of grid power failure.

    48. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by catprog · · Score: 2

      Their already is proof that wind turbine effect local weather. Of course so does anything including forests and cities.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    49. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by catprog · · Score: 1

      Hot water heat pump is a very good auxiliary load.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    50. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by catprog · · Score: 1

      It actually depends on the situation. Reduce emissions by a ton and it does not matter where it is. US or India.

      Setup solar in India and quality of life improves a lot while not having to burn more coal to power it.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    51. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by catprog · · Score: 1

      Pumped storage is the majority form of storage.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    52. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "grid" doesn't store energy, it delivers it

      Technically speaking, the grid does store energy. With a few exceptions (such as superconductivity), all real electrical devices, including wires, have -- from a lumped circuit element perspective -- inductance, capacitance, and resistance. You can buy a component called a resistor, but that component will also have capacitive and inductive characteristics, and these characteristics will dominate behavior in some circumstances (particularly at high frequencies). Since inductance and capacitance involve the storage of energy, the grid does store energy.

      Further -- from a fields perspective -- even though electrical current is not simply a matter of charge in motion -- the grid involves the acceleration of charge, and thus creates radiating electromagnetic fields outside the physical wires. These fields store (and also leak) energy.

    53. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is false. I'm the biggest solar bull on earth, but there is no way your costs and description of your lifestyle can both be accurate.

    54. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pv panels generally don't fail in non warranty ways and opex is negligble, and deep discharge lead acid are good unmaintained for 12-15 YEARS. 20 with upkeep, water and measurements. Micro inverters don't fail either. Your unresearched argument is hopeless

    55. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by warpuck · · Score: 0

      I don't know if petroleum coke is still used for home heating in Seoul. The last time I was there in the winter I could smell the burnt sulfur in the air. petcoke is not used in the US because it exceeds to SO2 emissions standard, but you can make steel with it. Funny thing is SO2 is supposed to block sunlight. Probably would not want to do that in the winter? I say the carbon emission responsible for global warming comes from all the forests that have been cut or burned down n the last 600 years. But I am not allowed to finger this out because I don't have PhD.

    56. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Putting energy in a battery throws away 30% to 40% right off the top in charge and discharge inefficiencies as shown above. If you have access to the grid, it makes no economical sense to give that up! Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient and virtually unlimited whereas storing energy in batteries is limited and not only throws away 30% of your energy, but also:"

      Source: http://www.aprs.org/off-grid-maybe.html

      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq states:
      EIA estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year.

      So since your source is claiming zero loss using the grid, which flies in the face of physics as well as being soundly refuted here, I'm going to just assume it's total bullshit.

    57. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Idiotic?

      I'm not talking about only a few thousand hectares of wind or wave systems -- and their impact will be much less per energy output than coal ever is. But everything that happens on this globe affects everything else; place a large enough wave farm in the wrong location (such as across the gulf stream) and you're not just affecting the flow of water, you're affecting global weather systems -- possibly for the better in some cases, if it mitigates other human-caused factors.

      I'm not saying the change will be 1:1, I'm not saying it'll be soon, and I'm not even saying it'll be adverse. But we do have the capacity to impact weather systems via harvesting wind and waves. Collecting energy means it is no longer available elsewhere. Ignoring this fact by saying that it "must be" negligible is idiotic, as eventually our energy consumption will impact other systems. This needs to be modeled and planned for during design, not after it happens (and many people are denying it for financial or other gain). Just because it won't happen in your lifetime is no reason to be negligent.

    58. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA?!?

      It truly pisses me off when people use obscure, ambiguous, confusable acronyms, ... "Totally... awesome", "Teachers for America", "traditional folk art", "time for action", etc., dozens more are found googling the acronym and none of them are applicable to the subject at hand. To hell with all the shortcuts if they leave your reader unable to figure out what you're saying! Communicate clearly or don't even bother!

    59. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in blazes is "TFA"?!? Look it up under acronyms... There are dozens of them... Totally... awsome"... "traditional folk art"... teachers for, America"... none listed are appropriate! Next time don't use acronyms that are obscure, confusable, or likely to frustrate readers!

    60. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "TFA" stand for? Nothing under acronyms appears even close. Sometimes trying to read Slashdot is mere frustration.

    61. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by billdale · · Score: 1

      What is "TFA?" I see nothing under acronyms that makes any sense of it!

    62. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Given that we flare off most of the energy we consume as heat, we'd also have to be comfortable with the earth being as hot as the sun.

    63. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Take a 10 year period - say, 2005 through 2014 - and it did about 9.8%. We're looking at 10-15 year return patterns, since that's the duration of the battery bank. So find a 10-15 year period in which the S&P 500 didn't do 7-8% annually.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    64. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Idou · · Score: 1

      Right. . . over the period 1999 to 2009 the return was ~ -34% (I suppose we do not need to annualize that to show that it is definitely below +7%/year). . .

      Besides, the idea that investment horizon is the only relevant factor when making investment comparisons is financial homeopathy.

      Stocks and corporate bonds are some of the most volatile, high risk asset classes you can invest in. Only magical thinking would make one conclude that would be anything close to investing in a project to reduce one's electricity bill over a long period of time. A closer comparison would be to purchase a US Treasury bond and hold it to maturity (go look up those returns instead).

      It is your choice to be ignorant about finance. However, Slashdot appears to have an epidemic level of financial ignorance going on over here. Think carefully before posting. When a Geek hands over his hard earned cash to the banksters, nobody wins. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    65. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from "RTFA" where R stands for "read" and A stands for "article." I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

    66. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read a bit about the topic.

      Waves != current ... to grasp that would be a start.

      Wind turbines, even the big ones, are pretty close to the ground. Even if you would fill the whole earth with wind turbines the effect would not be noticeable as 99.9999% of the air is moving ABOVE the turbines.

      Also it helps to get an idea how much energy a turbine is actually 'converting' from the air flow and how much energy is left in the air.

      Yes, your idea/assumption is idiotic :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    67. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If your neighborhood is sunny, and the other side of town is under a passing cloud, it is more likely that you will be sharing power over a fairly long distance, where there will be significant resistive losses as well as voltage conversion loses.

      Only if 'everyone' in your neighborhood also has panels and a lifestyle just like yours. They're starting to hit it over in Hawaii, on their highest sun/lowest power usage days, but even then generally speaking the commercial district is closer than the power plants.

      More realistically, when less than 10% of houses have solar panels even in a neighborhood, the power isn't going far.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    68. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not fair to compare to US Treasury bond either. Medium single family house ownership in the US is about 10-15 years. You may be forced to sell sooner and all your hardware investment calculations would go away. It is likely that potential buyers will not pay much extra for your (outdated by then) system. It may be stuck by lightning, destroyed in some other natural disaster and it will not be covered by some manufacturer's warranty, which may be useless anyway if manufacturer goes out of business which is very likely over decades. And yes, insurance company will certainly charge you extra for extra risk, there is no free money.
      And by the way, most original S&P 500 companies are out of business or out of S&P.

    69. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Those calculations do not factor-in utility companies that will screw you over if you're attempting to do home-solar or other local power generation. ...

      That's true. Some of the power companies are paying way too little for the power you put back.

      But don't expect the power company to buy your power at the exact same rate that they sell it. Even if they had no profit, they still need to make enough to maintain the grid it's self. And if you are using the grid instead of a battery, then you are "consuming" a benefit.

    70. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Idou · · Score: 1

      You may be forced to sell sooner and all your hardware investment calculations would go away.

      A situation that forced me to sell my home seems like it would also force me to sell a Treasury bond (perhaps to raise cash so that I would not have to sell my home). However, I suppose you are making a liquidity risk argument which is valid. Hence, I was careful to say similar to a “US Treasury, held to maturity.” However, I still think you argument is an exaggeration for the following reasons:
      - Surely your house increases in value by the present value of the future electricity savings. We see this with solar installations, so why not with batteries?
      - Batteries may not be as liquid as a financial instruments, but they are probably one of the easier fixed assets to sell off for close to their fair value on short notice.

      It may be stuck by lightning, destroyed in some other natural disaster and it will not be covered by some manufacturer's warranty, which may be useless anyway if manufacturer goes out of business which is very likely over decades.

      Yes, but these risks can be mitigated by 3rd party warranties and/or insurance. You COULD structure the investment so that it is risk free by giving up some of your return. Since risk free investments are around 0% right now, the bar is fairly low. Also, solar panels are typically covered by home insurance, so it does not seem a stretch that a residential battery bank would be fairly easy to add on to an existing insurance policy.

      And yes, insurance company will certainly charge you extra for extra risk, there is no free money.

      Of course, but insurance companies exist because they cover risks of assets without causing the investment in the underlying asset to have a negative return. The risks to a residential battery bank are similar to the risks to a home, so it seems reasonable to assume the additional insurance cost to someone who already has home owner's insurance would be minimal.

      most original S&P 500 companies are out of business or out of S&P.

      Good point. The original poster seemed to be unaware of the concept of survivorship bias. . .
      This is much better than the usual financial discussion that occurs on Slashdot. Now we just need you to make an account so that you are no longer an Anon and can help Slashdot have more rational financial posts.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    71. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Can you explain the difference between transporting and distributing? Without using a wrong definition of either, for a change.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    72. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Distribution grids are usually low voltage, starting at something like 10kV, and connect directly to end consumers. Which can be a factory (with high voltage connection points) or a house hold with a 230V connection point in Europe or 110V in other countries.

      Transport grids are simlly speaking connections of power plants to such distribution grids, often long range, e.g. a few hundred up to a few thousand km long.

      E.g. the connections between Norway and Germany are a transport grid. However Germany is divided into four 'control areas' where the grid operators for themselves keep up the correct grid frequency, those 'control areas' are compositions of distribution grids (regional grids around towns and cities) and transport power lines interconnecting those distribution grids. Those four 'control areas' are interconnected with transport grids as well. Many transport grids are not really a grid but point to point long distance transmissions, with additional optional connectines in between.

      However you might find wikipedia articles with pictures that explain it better than I can do that in words.

      France on the other hand e.g. only has one large 'control area' which consists of many distribution grids interconnected by transport grids and finally interconnected with the european grid.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    73. Re:Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! by perih60 · · Score: 1

      yes there is some loss , and there is also a loss with power coming by wire , however my brother has a solar setup semiportable , and he runns his house on SOLAR , he built it from secondhans items ! so for less than 1 years electricity cost , he has ( obviesly some componants will break down over the years ) but the cost of that is much less than paying for power ! recycling , free power , a lot of money saved , all rolled into one :) no more brownouts from energex to worry about . we know that his way is not for everyone , nor do we look at this as an eather or proposition . quite often there is more than one way of doing something !! sadly most peoples need to be right blinds them from seeing this . needless to add is the fact that electricity can kill , so unless you know what you are doing please go to a trustworthy proffessional . try to keep an open mind

      --
      the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
  2. But....Profits! by zarthrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't matter. As long as monopolistic energy companies spend their time legislating new fees to prevent the average person from being able to afford rooftop solar panels and wind turbines under the banner of "not choosing winners" ...a net-zero utility bill simply isn't possible in today's (political) climate - not in the US.

    This isn't likely to change, either. So, that leaves one option: Every man for himself. A house, and maybe even an entire neighborhood could be built around the idea of having some ability to cut utility costs by utilizing smart appliances, solar power, and electric cars with big honking batteries. But if you generate more power than you need, you better store it - where I live, you'll get an extra fee every month for generating your own power AND the power company only takes your excess in exchange for WHOLESALE rates.

    Net-zero would be my only incentive, and it's looking less likely without being investigated by the IAEA

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    1. Re:But....Profits! by inqrorken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should the utility be forced to pay you at the same rate you buy?

      Regular electricity is generated. It's then sold wholesale, where the local utilities then buy it and sell it at a regulated (5-10%) profit. In between the wholesale price, the 5-10% profit, and what you pay, is the cost of maintaining the distribution and transmission networks. These costs are nonzero. As the distribution utilities are traditionally regulated ("nonregulation" is really a misnomer, regulation still exists in those markets), those costs will still be borne by the ratepayers.

      If users of rooftop solar get net zero pricing, then they shift all of the upkeep costs to those without rooftop solar - as PV prices go down, these costs will be borne more and more by the poor and/or those who rent (in many cases, one and the same.)

      If you want to not pay for system upkeep, disconnect yourself. Spend the money on a vast solar array and a basement full of batteries (what, you though 24h of storage was enough? Not all the time, it's not.) Then realize the traditional model costs less to you.

    2. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But...you want it both ways! You want the reliability of the power company, and to spend less. You want to use your own power when its convenient for you, but have them on standby for when you need them but apparently don't want to pay. You want to force feed power back to them, but they don't want it, they want to sell power not store it for you so you can save money.

    3. Re:But....Profits! by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      At least locally, the upkeep costs the utility companies are proposing vastly outstrip their actual costs (aka, if every solar owner paid it they'd more than triple their maintenance budget). Second, the energy distribution is necessarily local (aka they're not shipping your residental solar power to somewhere hundreds of miles away), and has been shown to actually defer costs -- an internal report that the residential solar load lessened the amount of power needed to the city, putting off a major line upgrade costing tens of millions for at least 5-10 years. A cost that the utility otherwise would have had to distribute out, so at least in some instances it can lessen capital costs since major line upgrades for extra capacity are needed less often -- a nice benefit of distributed generation, you don't need such massive trunks lines.

      I don't have solar, but can definitely see this for what it is -- trying to crowd out something that they don't like.

    4. Re:But....Profits! by zarthrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're only proving my point, Coward. Why should I pay out of my own pocket to generate solar, and then pay the utility some more the utility to take my excess energy?

      If I can't make my own home efficient enough to stand on it's own, I'm not spending the money. If the local power company wants solar, they can do it on their dime, I'll stick to my utility fees, TYVM.

      If a neighborhood/city decided to invest in it's own smart grid, and treat every electricity source on equal-footing, that'd be interesting. If I can generate more power than I'm using, and the electric co *doesn't* own the distribution ...it's a free(er) market.

      I'm sure anyone who tried that would probably be lobbied away, probably by someone like you.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    5. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure anyone who tried that would probably be lobbied away, probably by someone like you.

      No, its a fine idea. But you are just being a dick about it. There is nothing stopping you from going off the grid, but one rainy day when your fail to generate the power you need you go crying back to the electric company and call it unfair that they charge you for it.

    6. Re:But....Profits! by inqrorken · · Score: 2

      They can't outstrip actual costs for more than 6-12 months, depending on the local laws. (In my state, the utilities have to justify prices to the public utilities commission or PuC every 6 months.) If in a given period they make more money than they are allowed to - the aforementioned 5-10% - then the excess is returned to the ratepayers.

      Capacity upgrades are generally a small percentage of O&M budgets. The majority goes to preventative and corrective maintenance (e.g., tree trimming, transformer replacement) and major upgrades to existing systems (e.g., replacing overhead with underground).

      While the solar backfeed is "local," the fact is the AC grid is somewhat of a beast. You still need to maintain the whole system.

    7. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL@basement full of batteries. Are you running a grow operation or something? I have a 2,500 square foot house with four people living in it, central air and a swimming pool. A battery bank with enough to power me through three days without a single electron from the grid or a solar panel occupies a grand total of ... 14 square feet if the batteries aren't stacked. And that's lead acid batteries. If we're talking about Lion, the energy density would allow that to shrink to less than 4 square feet.

    8. Re:But....Profits! by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Sounds like bullshit, or you live in Santa Monica and don't actually need that central air for cooling. I use around 100 kWh per day in peak of summer; you can pull that much out of 30 batteries for three days straight?

    9. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer to why they have to buy? Because they are the utility. Seriously the position in the local monopoly comes with responsibilities in exchange for the privileges. . Many places already separate supply and utility bill components so it isn't all that different. They aren't doing too bad for themselves anyway. Notice that utility companies are some of the few who still offer pensions - part of their whole business model is already based upon their stable income from having a monopoly on a demand that won't go away

    10. Re:But....Profits! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      At least where I am, they pay me something like 3.2c, but it also runs my meter backwards. If I put an extra 10kwh on the grid during the day, I can draw that same 10kwh at night for net zero. And I "made" 32c.

      I don't need a battery system, the "grid" acts as one, and with one year billing cycle, power I put on during the summer I can draw back in winter for no charge.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    11. Re:But....Profits! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Holy Dooley! Was that mis-keyed? How the hell do you manage 100 (one hundred) kWh per day? I've got a household of 2 adults and 2 teenagers all with their own computers, TV, etc, and we rarely get above 10 (ten) kWh/day.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    12. Re: But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something sounds off on that calculation. Hell, I use close to four square feet of lifepo4 batteries just to power my telescope/astronomy imaging rig in the field overnight, at 12v/~16A for roughly 10-12 hrs. When I used lead acid, it was more, and the weight of the batteries combined was over 200 lbs.

      Stacked you might have a point, but not spread one batt high...

    13. Re: But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about him, but woodworking hobby would do it for me. Figure tablesaw, jointer, planer, or bandsaw at 230v 20-30 amps (4.6 to 6.7 kW) plus dust collection at another 4 kW or so. Just an hour with that tops your whole 10 kWh for the day. i hear three phase power would be more efficient but up front costs would be prohibitive.

    14. Re:But....Profits! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's a ballpark, but $300/mo power bill at roughly $0.10/kWh (actually slightly cheaper, but not enough to worry about) means 3000 kWh/mo, or 100/day. Southeastern US, air conditioning is most of the bill. And here, air conditioning really is air conditioning, as neither dehumidification nor cooling would be adequate alone,

    15. Re:But....Profits! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Should have put this in other comment, but: let's round 10 kWh/d up to 12 kWh/d to make the math easy. That is equivalent to 500W continuous load, or a mere 4 Ampere at 120 V. How the hell do you keep load that low?

    16. Re:But....Profits! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      I don't need a battery system, the "grid" acts as one, and with one year billing cycle, power I put on during the summer I can draw back in winter for no charge.

      Yes, but you won't get that forever for free.

      If everyone did it, then the power company would have to provide power during the winter and everyone's bill would be zero.

      The math simply doesn't work.

      Net-zero billing works when very few customers are doing it, it falls apart at any kind of scale.

    17. Re:But....Profits! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      As I start to compose this, it's 16:52 on Saturday here. 2 adults and 2 teenagers in the house. Moving into Autumn, outside air temp is about 21 C, no need for air-con atm (don't have it, anyway). Current loads: 2 laptops, 1 desktop, some household lighting (mix of halogen and CFL), I just heard the refrigerator switch on, maybe the freezer is also going. The charge controller remote display in the kitchen says the load is 19.1 amps - that's a combination of 4.1 amps @ 24VDC, and 15 amps of 240VAC - the household lighting circuit is 24VDC and runs directly off the batteries. 240 VAC comes from a sine-wave inverter. That 15a of 240v represents the 24 volt DC load, not 15*240=3600w as you might assume, so it's about 1.5 amps of AC (lets leave out conversion efficiencies for the sake of this discussion).

      So the total load on the batteries right now of 19.1 amps at (currently) 24.8 volts DC gives a result of ~473 watts.

      That's pretty close to your calculation. Load will go up as more lights go on, but otherwise will stay pretty stable until we all go to bed. I *might* have to run the generator for a bit later on if we decide to turn on the big-screen TV to watch something during/after dinner.

      There's a couple of things that help to keep the load down. The inverter has a limit of 1500 watts continuous, any higher and there's a time limit ranging from ~1 hour @ 1600 w, to 30 seconds @ 3000 w. So we can't just have everything on at the same time. When it's time to do the vacuuming, all the computers have to go to sleep, and so on. There's no electric heating elements - no electric hot water, no electric jug, no electric toaster, no electric stove/oven, no electric clothes dryer (that one has to run directly off the generator when it's needed)

      We have generally fine weather here, so the clothes dryer doesn't get used very often - we hang the wet clothes on the line outdoors.

      We cook on a wood-fired stove (with a gas backup), which also heats our hot water, and about 40% of the firewood comes from own plot - grown, harvested and dried on the property.

      Come and visit - I'll talk you into boredom about off-grid living :-)

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    18. Re:But....Profits! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go - it's 19:55 here, and Legend of Korra Book 3 just went on - the TV went on, the sound system went on, there's more lights on, and the battery voltage dropped to 24.2. Don't want to let it get lower, so the generator is going to run for an hour or so, just to keep the battery voltage up.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    19. Re:But....Profits! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do what they do in Germany. Buy the local grid infrastructure and make it work for you. The animals buy the farm, and work it for themselves instead if being the product.

      Public ownership it very strong regulation is the only long term future for the grid. Utilities will go into a death spiral.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:But....Profits! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      I use about 3500 kWh/year.

      Sorry you should figure how to reduce the power consumption, but well, at that price you seem not to care. Main problem with the climate catastrophe ... how energy can be so cheap that you don't care about reducing consumption is beyond me.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re: But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically solar off grid works for you because you made sacrifices in your daily life reduced your standard of living, not because it is actually adequate to cover the full load of a home normally. And you seem surprised that the same trade off doesn't appeal to more people.

    22. Re:But....Profits! by stomv · · Score: 2

      With due respect inqrorken, your post is full of inaccuracies about the power system in the United States. (I have no idea about other countries).

      > Regular electricity is generated. It's then sold wholesale

      This is true for everywhere except the Southeast, AK, HI, and the non-California land west of the North Dakota-to-Texas set of states.

      > where the local utilities then buy it and sell it at a regulated (5-10%) profit.

      Absolutely wrong. In the areas where there is a wholesale market and in the areas where there is not, the profit does not come from the purchase and sale of energy. 0%. In wholesale regions, the utilities purchase the energy on behalf of customers and sell it to those customers with no markup on the energy. In regions without wholesale, the utilities purchase the fuel and chemicals necessary to generate the power, and recapture those costs with no markup.

      Utilities make their profits on the expenditure of capital. Utilities recover "of and on" -- they recover the cost of the capital investment and they recover a rate of return on that investment, on the order of 10%. Only, of course, if the public utility commission rules the investment prudent. And only, of course, for investor owned utilities (IOUs) -- neither munis nor coops collect recovery "on".

      > If users of rooftop solar get net zero pricing, then they shift all of the upkeep costs to those without rooftop solar - as PV prices go down, these costs will be borne more and more by the poor and/or those who rent (in many cases, one and the same.)

      There are a number of implicit assumptions. First, you're assuming that the net benefit of PV is less than the net cost, from a utility operations perspective. This assumption proves true in some places, but not true in others (including Minnesota, Maine, and a number of other states. Authors include E3, Bob Grace, Karl Rabago, and Crossborder). If the Value of Solar exceeds retail rates, then non-participants are actually better off because of the net metered customers. This happens because while it's true, the wires have to be maintained, it's also true that PV energy is produced when hourly prices are high, so the utility avoids procuring higher priced energy. It also avoids building some of the necessary generating capacity, it avoids transmission line losses, it avoids needing to buy hedges on as much fuel, it avoids having to comply (as much) with state RPS policies, it avoids having to purchase allowances for SO2 and NOx, etc.

      > hen realize the traditional model costs less to you.

      On this much, we certainly agree. Society has already paid to install lots of wires. Why wouldn't we use them? Large renewables (wind farms, solar farms, geothermal, etc) can be built at lower $/kWh prices, so let's use 'em. But lets also use distributed PV, distributed storage, more detailed and comprehensive demand response (DR), and keep pushing for far higher energy standards and energy efficiency (EE) deployment.

    23. Re:But....Profits! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Sorry you should figure how to reduce the power consumption, but well, at that price you seem not to care. Main problem with the climate catastrophe ... how energy can be so cheap that you don't care about reducing consumption is beyond me.

      My summertime electric bills are in the timezone of the person you're responding to. Reason? A/C running nearly 24/7. 90+ temps, 90%+ humidity, so your A/C runs pretty much constantly, even with good insulation.

      The only way I've managed to reduce things is trees to the south of the house to block as much direct sunlight as possible. And that solution makes solar power impossible, of course.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:But....Profits! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      If what you're implying is that rooftop solar generators should be paid the same as what the utility companies would spend generating it themselves, then sure, that's fair. Their main complaint about rooftop solar proliferation is that they're not paying their fair share of the upkeep for the grid itself. Who knows how valid that point is and/or how much they're overstating it.

      Unfortunately from what I hear there are many places where your house will literally be declared 'condemned' by the local County if it does not have an active connection to the local electric grid. That, however, I find to be unreasonable, but something that can (and should) be remedied legally by updating the relevant laws, which are obviously behind the times. Like with the proliferation of digital music, which the RIAA is still largely fighting against tooth and nail, the utility industry is operating with a now-outdated business model and must change. Nobody said this would be easy or quick.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    25. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you get paid less than any other generator of energy?

      Price protections? VERY anti-market. And requires government to interfere in the market.

    26. Re:But....Profits! by volmtech · · Score: 1

      My power cost $.10 a KWh. I average 1000 KWh a month now. Replacing my dead 3.5 ton central AC with window units saved me $50 a month. Painting my roof white saved a few of those dollars. Replacing my energy inefficient (but paid for) mobile home with a new house would cost $150,000. No thanks, I'm good, also poor so it's not happening anyway.

    27. Re:But....Profits! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      So you keep electric load low by using non-electric heating and living somewhere with a very mild, dry climate. That's a great solution, if you live somewhere with a mild, dry climate. I don't.

      It's spring here, which means it's pollen season, so even if I wanted to take advantage of days with cool air outside I couldn't do so without turning every surface in the house yellow. My house is well-insulated, and it's painted white, and I use LED's as much as I can, but there's little I can do given that the climate here is basically "subtropical swamp".

    28. Re:But....Profits! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You live in northern Europe, though, right? Where it basically never gets very hot or very cold, and the yearly mean temperature is such that the heat generated by a few humans going about their day is enough to keep it comfortable inside? Our summers are upper 30s Celsius nearly every day. It is not at all uncommon to go two or three months without the ambient temperature ever dropping below 20 C. In winter, typical daytime highs are low teens C with lows in low single digits, but with occasional drops to around -10 C. Typical power usage then is around 1/5 of peak summer load, although the gas usage for heating means that total utility bills are not much changed.

    29. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing people don't get is that all the infrastructure that utilities have put in come at a cost, utilities are highly leveraged in bonds to pay for the investment. In first world nations consumers expect the light to always come on, that reliability comes at a cost.

      Some utilities have decoupled the rates from the transmission/distribution cost and generation. In fact in deregulated markets this is done all the time.

      Disconnect if you want but if you want to sell the excess back there's a cost and the utility should be able to charge to transport that. Personally if storage is ever possible then maybe consumers could participate in the wholesale market at wholesale rates but I think we are a long way from that.

      Just an FYI when a utility buys power from another utility and it goes over a third party transmission line there is also a fee.

      I work at a utility with experience in wholesale energy trading

    30. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't think the city will still charge you? There's a cost for that infrastructure, look at your sewer bill, they take all your shit away at an expense.

    31. Re:But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems, that you do not know the temperatures in Northern Europe. It can be +30c in summer and -25c in winter, so ...

    32. Re: But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insulation, heard of it?

    33. Re:But....Profits! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      I am in Sacramento, so we have a very high solar ratio for home rooftop, 4% of power last year came from PVs

      There is no talk of charging us extra, they are still giving incentives on new homes and existing homes to add PV. But again, we are customer owned, not corporate.

      And you have to have a pretty big system to get 100% of your power needs even in winter. Mine would have to be at least 4-5x bigger than it is, which would have cost $80 to $100K pre rebate. Winter output is just so low, in January, my system generates as little as 2KWh per day, 1/20 what it does in June/July

      The best method is to get yourself under the Tier 1 cap, usually 1000Kwh per month. The rates are low because of the tier-ing system, and it pays itself back very quickly.
      So my bill is generally around $70 per month, which means I am at about 70% of Tier 1 usage.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    34. Re:But....Profits! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I am in Sacramento, so we have a very high solar ratio for home rooftop, 4% of power last year came from PVs

      There is no talk of charging us extra, they are still giving incentives on new homes and existing homes to add PV. But again, we are customer owned, not corporate.

      Yes, because your state has such a history of making great financial choices. :)

      4% isn't a huge number, if it grows, the situation won't last, that is my only point.

    35. Re: But....Profits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This already occurs. Utilities don't use it as an excuse to kick small homes and apartments off the grid. It is a deficiency in planning, arguably purposeful at this point given the shear quantity of research demonstrating proposed financial, technical, and logistical solutions...

    36. Re:But....Profits! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Erm, you don't know much about 'northern' europe, not sure if we would call it north, but yes you can consider it north as it is certainly not south and north of germany is scandinavia.

      Winter temperatures used to be much colder then they are now, but this Winter we had at my place a quite long period with -10 degrees.
      Summer temperature is always above 30degrees, in august peaking at close to 45, I believe around 1993/1997 somewhere we had an record of 48.

      However the weather varies greatly over germany, the north is colder in summer but mostly warmer in winter.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:But....Profits! by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... The only way I've managed to reduce things is trees to the south of the house to block as much direct sunlight as possible. And that solution makes solar power impossible, of course.

      Um... Don't the solar panels shield the roof?

    38. Re:But....Profits! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can't believe temperatures from 45 C on up regularly in anything that could be described as northern Europe. 45 C is 113 F, and we don't come anywhere close in the middle of a frippin' continent at about the latitude of Belgrade (i.e., southern Europe). Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree either.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:But....Profits! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I live in Karlsruhe, perhaps you want to google for real temperature data of the last 20 years instead of relying on wikipedia.
      There are plenty of towns in germany that have over 40 degrees C every summer.
      And that is not a 'new phenomena' ... happened before the climate catastrophe already.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:But....Profits! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You could put shades in front of your window.

      We used to put white (relatively thin) linen canvas in front of our windows outside.

      Worked well keeping the heat out but lighty enough to not feel hindered.

      Ofc. we had to get them back inside in case of rain etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    41. Re:But....Profits! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I tried googling for Karlsruhe record temperatures, and got nothing useful. Got anything?

      Why do you say Wikipedia is incorrect about maximum temperature in Germany? It's not a hot political topic, and aside from those Wikipedia is usually accurate.

      Nor do I understand how you could possibly be getting far warmer temperatures than Minneapolis, but I'd accept it with sufficient documentation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re:But....Profits! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I tried googling for Karlsruhe record temperatures, and got nothing useful. Got anything?

      I guess that is easier in "german" :D
      This are only high temperatures, not lows for winter: http://www.wetterdienst.de/Kli... (a random first hit on google), there are plenty of towns with heat records above 40C

      No idea how reliable that data is ...

      Why do you say Wikipedia is incorrect ...
      I did not mean incorrect, but more "not reliable" as it is edited by hobbyists. In this case it might be more problematic that records like above are are collected from more or less "official" measuring points. Which means "anecdotical" data from private points is lost (and measure points are averaged, so the 40.5C in Karlsruhe likely is an average from 36C to 44C ... or whatever, no one really knows except the guys publishing it)

      Nor do I understand how you could possibly be getting far warmer temperatures than Minneapolis
      Well, central Europe is in summer as well as in some winters dominated by strong long lasting high pressure zones. Long lasting implies we have an "unusual" east wind, from siberia. That brings heat in summer and cold in winter.
      The principle is the same as the "arctic/polar vortex" phenomenon. No idea why this word got "fame" last year because of the "normal" cold around the big lakes in the USA/Canada. That vortex exists every year, during the whole year, and one or two additional high pressure zones influence the winter weather quite heavily.

      That "vortex" exists all the time, the question is how (or how many) high pressure and low pressure areas are established in deep winter and high summer.

      Bottom line you underestimate the effect of high temperature winds coming from Sibera, or even desert storms coming from Africa/Sahara, but the later only have an effect in south Germany, north of the Alps (ofc. they heat up Spain, Italy or Greece quite considerably).

      Also you might miss the gulf stream.

      Even Countries like the Icelands have a summer high temperature like 30C.

      North Scandinavia, Trondheim e.g. see: http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/...

      E.g. Trondheim minimum record is like -26C and maximum is like 35C. Even Germany is COLDER in winter, in bad winters.

      There are islands around Norway at the coast, that barely get a minus temperature in winter nights, because of the gulf stream having like +10C - +12C temperature around there.

      Finally, you underestimate the fact that in summer the days go longer and longer the farer north you go.

      It is a difference wether your daytime is 14h (in Minnesota) or 18h or even 22h in Trondheim.

      Perhaps in Minnesota the "hot phase" per year is longer, and on average hotter, but it is easy to assume the peaks are the same, well it seems the official peaks are a bit higher than in Germany, and ofc, in Norway bottom line the temperature is lower ...

      Sorry, my previous attempt to answer was eaten by my iPad ... it had a few more links which I don't find now on my Mac.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Watt is this article about? by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems to be an article more about condemning Tesla's batteries that about energy. In fact the word "watt" appears nowhere. Before you can have a discussion about energy you need to be armed with some facts about actual energy needs and potentials. This is just more anti-Tesla propaganda.

    1. Re:Watt is this article about? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This seems to be an article more about condemning Tesla's batteries that about energy. In fact the word "watt" appears nowhere. Before you can have a discussion about energy you need to be armed with some facts about actual energy needs and potentials. This is just more anti-Tesla propaganda.

      As well as anti-reality.

      "Stover worries that shifting responsibility for solutions to climate change from governments to individuals creates an 'every-man-for-himself' culture that actually works against energy solutions and does little to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions."

      Right - because central planning is a much better idea <eye roll>.

      The bottom line is that when I reduce my carbon footprint I save money, at least in the long run. I've invested hundreds of dollars in the last year in getting LED lights throughout the house. I'll make that money back within 5 years - I can already see the difference on my light bills. Next year I'm hoping to start my solar farm on my very large southern-facing roof. I'll likely have negative light bills when I'm done and it'll pay for itself within 3 or 4 years (yes, that's less than average and there's a reason for that having to do with my air conditioning and the solar panels taking heat off the house).

      So, yeah, we need the grid upgraded. But at this stage we need a lot of people trying a lot of different things so that we can find out what works and what's economical. Ultimately, if it doesn't save me money it ain't gonna happen.

    2. Re:Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah..I mean first there was The Prestige and now this.....

    3. Re:Watt is this article about? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I wonder how you got a modup point, it seems you have read the article at all. It is not about Tesla's batteries at all. It is about the idea, whatever batteries or anything else you are talking about to take you off the grid. Tesla's batteries are just accessory in the discussion and the author just don't give a fuck about whom is providing you favorite energy reservoir. The idea to go off the grid is just plain stupid, the self-sufficient idea as well. This thing doesn't scale well it is something for the happy few with deep pockets, the exact customers people like Musk are after. It doesn't do anything to help solving a global problem. In fact, just do the math and count the number of solar panels, small windmills needed and their efficiency compare to large scale windmills, large solar panel farms, etc. Going of the grid is basically a survivalist thing something for believers in the zombie apocalypse. That is what the article is about.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re:Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I once built my own small section of the interstate highway system. In the end, I felt... justified.

    5. Re:Watt is this article about? by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I was trying to show is that in order to solve an engineering problem you have to have sound engineering principles. If you're talking about energy you use words like "watt" and numbers like Kilowatt Hours and maybe even joules and other terms that the author is probably unfamiliar with.

      For example, If I equip my home with 5,000 watts (peak) solar panels that generate 35 kwh of energy. 15 kwh which I use immediately that leaves 20 kwh excess which I can store. If my storage system is 75% efficient I can then use another 15 kwh at night which will make me capable of being off grid. What's wrong with that?

    6. Re:Watt is this article about? by zarthrag · · Score: 2

      You should feel lucky. Most of my roof is southern facing, but the local utility here won't take excess power without charging a bunch of extra fees, plus a really low rate. Additionally, they won't allow you to maintain/bank credit. The only way towards an ROI in under a decade is to use/store everything I generate.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    7. Re:Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich people problems.

    8. Re:Watt is this article about? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      The math is wrong.
      The idea how to equip your house and how to schedule power consumption: is wrong.
      The idea how efficient storage systems are: is wrong.

      All that can easy be googled, by the way.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Watt is this article about? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I got agitated because I miss-read 'Smart Grid' for 'Smart Meter'. Try and avoid smart meters because they will work against you.
      In the 80s, I lived in a house with a heat bank. This massive collection of brick was warmed up and provided heat during the day. Electricity prices were cheap at the time. If I had that now, I could feed some of my solar electricity to it and save on costs. The problem is that home solar generation either goes to the grid OR gets stored in batteries. Right now it's cheaper to sell my energy and I have thrice achieved +ve $credit in 4 years.
      If I could split the power output, I would of done so already and powered the house at night via batteries and used the existing inverter. In that case I would have upped the panels from 3kw to 6+kw to do the job with almost no ongoing costs. I don't mind capital cost; it's the ongoing cost that breaks most households.
      Now that's all good for the summer months, but cloud and shortened days means that I must rely on grid power unless I supplement that with a 3~5kw diesel generator to feed the batteries (which die after 10 years). So there is no achievable off the grid solution at the moment unless you want to go hippie.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:Watt is this article about? by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      In what way is my math wrong?

      In what way is the idea wrong?

      If the storage efficiency is wrong (which it isn't) then I just add more solar panels or reduce my energy consumption.

      Before you challenge an engineering concept you need to provide some proof. BTW this system works and many systems are now in use. You haven't shown how this is a bad idea.

      Again if it can't be expressed in numbers it is not science.

    11. Re:Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I built a small piece of a nuclear power plant in my shed -- but then some gentlemen from the government came and now I have to post on /. from a cell phone smuggled in in some guys rectum.

    12. Re:Watt is this article about? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What about using one of those plug-in grid-tie inverters? That will limit your peak power to 15 or 20 amps or 1800 or 2400 watts per standard circuit. Being plug-in it can be considered a temporary installation which avoids many regulatory issues.

    13. Re: Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing wrong, to start, is the calculation of using less than 35 kWh in a day on a regular basis. A more realistic number is the guy above who noted his house requires circa 110 kWh per day in the heat of summer.

    14. Re:Watt is this article about? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      There are many vague and unsubstantiated ways in which your math and idea are wrong that I don't wish to go into right now.

      perhaps you could find some help here http://lmgtfy.com/?q=I'm+wrong

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    15. Re: Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3 average is around 30kWh, state with the highest average is around 42kWh.
      Did not find the seasonal numbers for USa, got them for Australia http://energymadeeasy.gov.au/bill-benchmark/results/3660/4 .

    16. Re: Watt is this article about? by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

      OK. SO lets say I actually average 35 kwh/day on an annual basis. I generate 70 kwh/day with PV and other passive means. I store about half that. Hopefully I can use less during the night than during the hot days in summer. If I store thermal radiation with a heat sink it will help heat during winter.

      All of this is dependent on the local climate but I believe it is doable. All of the comments so far have said it isn't doable, to be off grid, that is. Plainly the collectivists on this forum are more numerous than the individualists but the politics doesn't alter the science. It all numbers and up to the initiative and ingenuity of the engineer.

      I am an engineer and I believe in real things. Not your collectivist defeatist paradigm but one of hope with a "can-do" attitude.

      If the Egyptians can build a pyramid and the Romans can build roads and aqueducts without an electrical power grid I think I can build an off-grid power system that will satisfy my families needs.

      "Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why. Then do it!" - Lazarus Long

    17. Re:Watt is this article about? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      For starters: the storage efficiency is around 95%

      The rest you have to google.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re: Watt is this article about? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ofc it is doable.

      The question is what you exactly want to do.

      Storing heat over summer time and using a heat pump in winter is easy. The question is where to store it.

      Old school you built a sand reservoir below your house. But if the house is already existing ... no chance.

      Depending where you live I would consider a swimming pool. Heat it up with solar power over summer time and use it as a heat reservoir in winter for a heat pump.

      Another thing is insulation.

      Regarding electric power: I would not consider to go off grid if the grid is close. If you want to go off grid, for what ever reason, I would consider how to orchestrate your usage.

      The washing machine and the fridge don't need to be "active" the same time. So peak demand can be shaped. There are very simple "plug into the power socket" solutions that restrict power consumption to certain times of the day.

      It is an error to plan power production and power storage around peak demand.

      If you have questions contact me via email ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re: Watt is this article about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using your energy then is the most economical case. They can't stop you from using heloc credit, which is probably the lowest capital you have. Start a micro inverter system, even with just 500-1000W. Schedule some big loads during the day, eg water heater if that is electric,use your account to precool, dish and clothes was schedules. one of the best solar cases is for everyone to have small systems. Stops all the bulls hit utility complaining about transmission etc ... and they will still Olla pre as thier existing assets be come untenable and they do nothing to adapt only lobby to not change

  4. Deceptive Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of a bait and switch with the title. You can go off grid with the right system and an extremely energy efficient home. There's no myth there. I don't recall anyone suggesting that this had anything to do with "climate change".

    1. Re:Deceptive Title by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Clean Coal,(oxymoron), burning electrical plants...

    2. Re:Deceptive Title by Cramer · · Score: 2

      With a sufficiently frugal existence, it's rather easy to "live off the grid." Humans did so for millions of years before there was a grid; it's simply inconvenient to do so today.

  5. don't leave the grid! by Darrin+Ward+CTO · · Score: 0

    then i can't install viruses on your computers!

    --
    Use my services at SEOChat.com and ChatButton.com so i can install viruses on your users computers!
  6. It isn't easy being green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batteries didn't seem that impressive here other than the scale of it. The utility helped set up a business with a battery backup that could handle a whole wind turbine worth of power. 2 CONTAINERS of battery equipment just does not seem very green to me! I believe they were the next step past lithiom-ion so about as compact as it gets currently.

    Staples is going to need a bigger recycle bin if we start doing that!

  7. Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by MpVpRb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?

    When your local production exceeds your demand..push the rest into the reservoir

    When you have a deficit..draw from it

    Many people who advocate being off the grid are extreme isolationists..who value isolation over practicality

    Sometimes, being a bit dependent, and interconnected, is good

    1. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Many of us already do this, we use grid intertie syncing inverters.
      It is done all over the USA by a lot of people that have Solar installations. Granted I only have a small 5Kwh install but it's enough.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re: Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You communist!

    3. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that many utilities pay far less per kWh than they charge you. As a result, you're generating most of your power when you don't need it (during the day when you're at work), getting almost nothing for it, and then you're consuming most of your power when you're not generating it, paying full price for it.

      The result? You end up saving very little.

      It starts to make sense to have batteries to let you use the power you generated, giving you a much greater return. The only issue here is the cost of the batteries... which Tesla is trying to drive down as much as they can.

    4. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      The idea of having the ability to be an island is actually very beneficial IF it's sustainable. If we could design a battery that can store 100 KW of energy, is durable, is safe, uses resources that are green and reusable that would make it even more viable. 100 KW = 3 days worth of electricity for the average American.

      Why is it so beneficial being off the grid?
      1. Much lower cost of infrastructure and limited to non existent maintenance for residential applications (this is not applicable to industrial applications)
      2. Distribution makes grids somewhat inefficient due to significant loses in transfer
      3. No such thing as mass power outages/blackouts
      4. Much lower cost of electricity (that's a bold statement considering how many variables play out)

      Many people who advocate being off the grid are extreme isolationists..who value isolation over practicality

      I don't see how that is relevant. Those who heat via oil are off the grid, does that make them isolationists? How about those who heat using wood stoves?

      Sometimes, being a bit dependent, and interconnected, is good

      Even being off the grid won't make you independent. It will just remove a huge overhead that has existed since the 1800s. Instead of spending your money on energy that isn't renewable you will spend it on maintaining renewable energy equipment you either own or rent.

      I know I'd love to control the cost of my energy. Currently even if I use no electricity the bill is still high due to BS charges for maintaining the grid. I know every state and province is different so you may be seeing a different picture (if you are even paying for electricity).

    5. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Much lower cost of infrastructure and limited to non existent maintenance for residential applications (this is not applicable to industrial applications

      You are underestimating the reality of residential equipment failures and maintenance requirements by a long shot.

      2. Distribution makes grids somewhat inefficient due to significant loses in transfer

      Battery charge/discharge is far less efficient than a reasonably constructed grid and much less efficient that a well constructed grid.

      3. No such thing as mass power outages/blackouts

      Except when equipment breaks down. There are no 100% reliable systems and residential skill at repair of this equipment will be near 0%. Compare that to electrical utility staff.

      4. Much lower cost of electricity (that's a bold statement considering how many variables play out)

      Beyond bold... Perhaps you have heard of economies of scale? It holds true for many types of energy production as well.

    6. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?

      Makes total sense, but the problem is that too many people think that reservoir should be provided at no cost.

    7. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by zarthrag · · Score: 2

      DING! DING! DING! This is exactly the problem.

      The icing on this is going to be, in the end, the power companies will *have* to come around to providing a smart grid AND fair buy-back rates (sans fees), as no one will use them for anything other than a backup supply. Otherwise, you'll start to see people putting up their own miniature grids to sell/share power on a local basis. (Think housing addition in the burbs, where ALL of the homes have panels, batteries, and electric cars.)

      Even with maintenance costs, "free" renewable energy is quite possible with an efficient home and habits. If you don't travel much/far, or simply use a bicycle (or better, if you don't commute) then you could potentially increase that margin by quite a bit.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    8. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, energy is measured in joules, power is measured in watts. If you look at a UPS power backup, it is rated in volt-amps, which anyone with high school physics can show you is equivalent to watts.

      Secondly, since when does heating your home with oil or a wood stove equate to being off-grid? From where does the family living in such a home get the power for their appliances? That is a pretty bold assumption that they are off-grid.

    9. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?

      Because that is not how the grid actually works.

      When your local production exceeds your demand..push the rest into the reservoir

      What actually happens is the dispatchable grid producers generate less electricity. There is very little storage.

      When you have a deficit..draw from it

      What actually happens is that the grid producers generate more electricity from their dispatachable plants.

    10. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Who pays for the distribution grid? Who pays for the "storage". That "storage" is in fact dispatchable generators that are used when needed and still need to be maintained.

    11. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by serbanp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would they? The grid has no inherent storage capability into which to dump your day-time excess energy. It costs the power company to manage your bit of excess you're trying to dump into the grid.

      A few days ago I saw a nice graph showing PG&E's averaged output power during a typical 24h. It's a slanted U-shape, with the bottom somewhere around noon, then a sharp increase between 6PM and 9PM, tapering off after midnight and dropping slightly after 7AM. If they took away the solar-generated power fed into the grid by individual installations, the U becomes much deeper and PG&E projected that it will get deeper in the near future.

      The HUGE problem this energy generation/consumption pattern creates is that the baseline generators must provide the bottom of the U and not a Joule more. Everything else, especially the evening spike, must come from coal and NG power plants. Since in time the ratio between the peak and the baseline increases, more dirty and greenhouse gas emitting power plants MUST BE BUILT. In fact, all these 3 to 5kW solar installations make the greenhouse gas situation worse if the excess energy is not stored, which is contrary the feel-good but incorrect assumption about how all these solar panels help save the planet.

    12. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2

      This is all a semantics game. Personally, when I think "off grid" I'm thinking "grid-tied, but I generate as much juice as I can through solar cells". Excess gets sold to "the collective" and on rainy days I pull from the battery that is the grid. Unless you live in a Seattle-esque climate, that is an achievable goal for most single family homes for not a whole lot of money. It takes pressure off the central grid and through tax incentives isn't even much of a financial hardship to implement.

      Being entirely grid free is a much more expensive proposition since you need a fairly expensive bank of batteries to store energy and perhaps a generator (pick a fuel) to CYA when the weather isn't cooperative.

      I've voted with my pocketbook and am going the grid-tied route. For about US$15k I will have a system that can power my home on sunny days and will likely pay for itself in 5-7ish years.

    13. Re: Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, I work from home, you insensitive clod!

    14. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the problem with increasing the output of the 'baseline generators' at times other than noon?

    15. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      They take forever to ramp up/down. A NG turbine can ramp up down as needed. The only clean baseline that can ramp up/down is hydro but thats pretty much tapped out in the 1st world. This is what the greenies do not get the grid is not some battery, you need to balance inputs with outputs. Some heavy industry does this aluminum smelting etc that can shift it's demand to use up excess capacity and often get the power for next to nothing. Smarter building can help we have extremely little cogeneration where otherwise waste heat is put to work.

      Some countries have used that excess capacity to pump water uphill to use as hydro peeking but thats very terrain specific.

      EV's could help this, a typical car is parked at work or home most of the time. These are big batteries capable of soaking and sourcing a lot of power individually but a parking lot full is potentially capable of massive amounts (parking lot of 200 cars with 30amps at 240v is nearly 1.5 megawatts either way). Now thats a lot of infrastructure to get in place to actually use. It's also a huge monitoring and security issue. Do you want the power company to be able to infer you had strenuous activity in your bedroom at these times and these dates? Do you want those record to be available for criminal/civil subpoena, national security letter, or the NSA hacking in because they can? Do you want every major appliance in your home reachable somehow from the power company? Considering that this gear may well affect billing one way or another there will be a big push for it to be closed source black boxes that could end up in everything that plugs into a wall socket. We need strong protections from all this to keep the information private, the system open, and allow individuals to protect themselves with technical means.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    16. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      You got that wrong.

      If you are producing more power during the day, the meter runs backwards. Or at least it should, they installed a second meter to measure what I generate so they could subtract it from what I used.

      So if you generate 10 during the day, use 5, and then use 5 at night, your net cost is zero.

      The 3.2c they pay me is just gravy.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    17. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he grid has no inherent storage capability into which to dump your day-time excess energy.

      I wonder if we could fix it so commercial customers were using most of their power during the day as opposed to the current system where all the factories, and climate control systems are running full bore at night and quiet during the day. /sarcasm

      A few days ago I saw a nice graph showing PG&E's averaged output power during a typical 24h. It's a slanted U-shape, with the bottom somewhere around noon, then a sharp increase between 6PM and 9PM, tapering off after midnight and dropping slightly after 7AM.

      And if you look at the Net Demand curve you'll notice that at NO POINT is solar or wind producing excess power. All they are doing is shaving off the mid-day peak.

      The HUGE problem this energy generation/consumption pattern creates is that the baseline generators must provide the bottom of the U and not a Joule more. Everything else, especially the evening spike, must come from coal and NG power plants. Since in time the ratio between the peak and the baseline increases, more dirty and greenhouse gas emitting power plants MUST BE BUILT.

      Another crock of shit. Hydro, wind, geothermal, and biomass all produce power 24 hours a day.

      In fact, all these 3 to 5kW solar installations make the greenhouse gas situation worse if the excess energy is not stored, which is contrary the feel-good but incorrect assumption about how all these solar panels help save the planet.

      Aren't you just a fountain of myths and misconceptions. There is no "excess" energy until the entire grid being fed by solar has no use for additional electricity. Even then, the extra electrons can go into the ground harmlessly. They do not undergo transmutation into carbon or some other greenhouse gas.

    18. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?

      Cuz it aint one.

      When your local production exceeds your demand..push the rest into the reservoir

      When you have a deficit..draw from it

      When you have excess so does everyone else and when you have a deficit so does everyone else. Little capability exists to buffer energy at scale in current systems.

      Many people who advocate being off the grid are extreme isolationists..who value isolation over practicality

      Practical is more often than not determined by how many are willing to spend how much to get a desired result.

    19. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Some utilities do that, run the meter backwards. Others measure what you use and what you take out of the grid and put back in separately, bill you for what you used from the grid, and pay you a much smaller amount per kWh for what you put back in.

    20. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is then why don't we change how we do our heating and cooling? Why not through automated means change the thermostat to heat/cool the house to an extreme amount at noon so that at 5-6 when we get home things are just right. It seems like such predictions would be possible and then much less of the solar energy has to be sent anywhere. Maybe there is some flaw in this, but it seems to be a good way of dealing with 'excess' energy and lower energy consumption later in the day.

    21. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're smoking the kool aid.

      four words: mid day air conditioning

    22. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 2

      The cost of cycling an EV battery is about 50 cents per kWh (source). In many cases, electricity from the grid is far cheaper than that from the battery, even when the battery can be charged for free.

      Assuming that Tesla can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. It would then make sense to use the battery whenever the difference between what you pay for electricity and what you can get for it is less than 25 cents (plus a few cents to account for losses in the battery). But the profit, if any, would be small, and the initial investment is high.

      I don't think that anybody who is on the grid today will benefit from going off it. This technology currently only makes sense for new construction in remote areas. But maybe a decade from now, prices will have come down, and there will be a huge market for this. Tesla will then have a big share of that market.

    23. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      well, here's an analogy. if i sell vegetables to a restaurant, who pays for the the refrigerator at the restaurant to store those vegetables? if the restaurant wants to preserve those vegetables for longer, the restaurant will pay for the equipment. Ultimately this cost is passed onto the customer to cover his expenses.

      Why shouldn;t the utility act in the same way?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    24. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Ultimately the customer pays because it'll be factored into his/her bill for usage of electricity

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    25. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The customer who does not have the ability to use PVs will pay. They would be businesses and apartment dwellers. Those who use PV will see no difference as their net zero bill will still be zero.

    26. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about making the energy price time dependent so that e.g. the big aluminum smelters have an incentive to smooth out the U?

    27. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why would they? Because it's the only way out of the death spiral. Of they don't people will go off (their) grid and they will die. Providing cheap storage and distribution is the only long term future for them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Incomplete analogy. It would be more appropriate to add that the restaurant must ALWAYS keep a table available for you, and keep extra veggies for you whether you will buy them or not.

      A more appropriate analogy would be the delivery of those veggies to your home. You expect the delivery truck to pass buy every day whether you intend to buy or not. But you don't want to pay the cost of that truck traveling the extra distance to so it can be ready.

      And if you are growing your own veggies, requiring that truck to buy your veggies at retail price, transport them and maybe sell them elsewhere at no profit even though the truck already had enough veggies to sell the other customers already.

    29. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?

      The primary reason is because there is no appreciable storage or capacitance in the grid. Every watt that is generated is balanced by a watt of consumption, second to second. That is what the purpose of an Independent Service Operator (ISO) is - forecasting supply and demand on a minute- and hour-basis, and ensuring that balance is maintained. When instantaneous supply does not match demand, the grid becomes unstable. This usually first manifests as frequency drift - it'll rise or fall from its nominal 60 Hz (50 Hz in other countries), followed by voltage drift. Eventually you get bad things like failing transmission lines and transformer fires.

      There is some flexibility on both the supply side ("dispatch" power that can be ramped up very quickly) and some on the demand side (certain large users - factories and such - can temporarily throttle their usage in exchange for payments. Residential customers can have their air conditioners temporarily switched off by the utility - again in exchange for payment). There is a small bit of storage - pumped water hydro, flywheels, batteries - but it's pretty localized, and minuscule compared to the total energy utilization. There is also some dispatchable demand to take up excess supply - ice generation and hot water generation - but that, too, is pretty small peanuts.

      Some efforts have been made to make a bigger business out of grid-tied storage, but they haven't been ringing successes just yet due to the large capital costs. If someone could cut the capital cost of storage in half, you could expect to see more large-scale deployments, probably in conjunction with intermittent renewables. This may well be Elon's master plan.

    30. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by stomv · · Score: 1

      > The problem is that many utilities pay far less per kWh than they charge you.

      In the US, something like 44 states have net metering, and a few others have voluntary programs. Now it's true, munis and coops are generally not obligated to participate. For the vast majority of Americans, however, their utility pays them exactly the same $/kWh for surplus as it charges them for sales.

      There are some other nuances: some tiny charges aren't reversible in some states (like $0.00034/kWh for enviro fee or somesuch), and utilities seem to be moving in the direction of lower $/kWh fees and higher fixed fees.

      If you're thinking about putting PV on your roof, go talk to an installer. Don't get your payback advice from Guspaz or stomv.

    31. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by stomv · · Score: 1

      > A few days ago I saw a nice graph showing PG&E's averaged output power during a typical 24h. It's a slanted U-shape, with the bottom somewhere around noon, then a sharp increase between 6PM and 9PM, tapering off after midnight and dropping slightly after 7AM.

      No you didn't. That's not their curve. What you may have seen is the so-called California Duck, which is a different thing entirely -- a projection of a March weekend day in 2022 where there's tons more solar and no other changes to the generating capacity (which, of course, doesn't match reality). The CAISO (most of California -- PG&E, SoCal Ed, SDG&E, but not LADWP) daily demand curve can be found at:

      http://www.caiso.com/outlook/S...

      Careful -- today is Saturday, where demand is far lower than M-F workdays. Notice that on a Spring weekend, there's a local maximum at around 11am-noon, and then the daily peak in the late evening. On a weekday, you'll see a big peak in the late afternoon, sometimes before 5pm, sometimes after. Nevetheless, it never bottoms out around noon.

    32. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for North America but Europe has massive pumped hydro potential that is untapped.

      Assessment of the European potential for pumped hydropower

      Pumped hydro can be totally man made, dig a hole, connect a pipe, install some bi-directional turbines, damn off an area with little water flow and you have a giant battery that will last hundreds of years with little maintenance.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    33. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      The environmental impact of creating new lakes is pretty significant. You also want it to be near other methods of generation so you no going through double conversion.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    34. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I think its an okay analogy. Supermarkets keeps stock on the hope the customer buys. The veggie seller is the home solar supplier, the restaurant is the utility. if the utility wants my excess solar, it can use the already installed and (probably) paid for infrastructure to get it. It buys the power from the home solar at a suitable cost which it resells at a higher rate. The utility uses less fuel stock during the day (saves money), the home solar then becomes a power buyer during the dark period and buys at retail. The utility's major task is to develop its fuel burning generating systems to be more able to fire up quicker to take over (or increase) when its required or find a way to store any unsold solar. I can't see who loses apart from the utility that doesn't move with the times.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    35. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      It buys the power from the home solar at a suitable cost which it resells at a higher rate.

      But this is not what many solar folks want. They want full retail rate, and that is what the existing forced purchase rules require in many places. If the requirement was to buy that power at wholesale rates or the going cost of power at that time, your view would make a lot more sense. And the utilities are also forced to purchase that power when there is an excess of supply, at that point they actually have to pay other part of the grid to take their excess power because they can't meet reliability requirements and shut down spinning reserve.

      So you also need to account for that fact that when one person is providing his excess power, it is likely everyone else in the area is too, all solar peaks are at the same time of day.

      Account for those factors, and other realities like managing power flow, then its not quite as pie in the sky as your analogy infers.

    36. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Battery University is years out of date. They're citing a cost for Li-ion of $1,000/kWh when in reality prices have dropped to as little as a quarter of that. Tesla, for their part, is currently charging $141/kWh for replacement batteries, no doubt on the assumption that their GigaFactory will get prices that low by the time Tesla batteries need replacing.

    37. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: "Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?"

      I agree with everything you say excdept the above quote. I mean, this is a valid perspective for a consumer who only has to plan for themselves, but you do realize that the grid has little to no storage capacity, right? The way most grids are actually constructed these days?

      Therefore what is really going on is, you are letting the power generating companies be responsible for balancing supply and demand on the grid. Which is what they already do, so that's not much of a stretch of expectations. But it's worth noting from a public policy perspective.

    38. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are being subsidized by the poor.

      Unless you pay for your own battery bank, you are being a twat!

    39. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While costs went down, AFAIK Tesla is charging several times more for replacement batteries.
      Your quote is for some advertising gimmick - pay $12,000 now for option purchase battery many years later in case you will need it, and pay $80,000 for the car too.

    40. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is good IBM didn't transferred into some public computer utility at the time when everything was done on mainframes with remote terminals few decades ago. Because it is more efficient to have centralized computing power ;) You know what happened next.

    41. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Tesla is charging what they expect batteries to cost by the time replacements are needed, but if memory serves, lithium ion batteries in bulk quantities are still available for $250-300ish, which is still far lower than the $1000 that the site is basing their math on.

    42. Re:Going off the grid completeletly is stupid by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Normal watt-hour meters will run backwards, and always have. But the power company can not afford to do that very much, so they will put in a dual meter if it happens a lot on your line.

      That means that if your meter runs backwards when you generate, they probably have just not noticed yet!

  8. Commie bastards! :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greenies and Commies are all the same - want to bring us together and force us to sacrifice our stuff to some shitty goal they consider to be "higher" today.

  9. Alternative to batteries by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some utilities have also experimented with using home water heaters as an economical substitute for batteries

    Many large buildings used to make ice overnight when the electricity rates are low (in some parts) and melt the ice to cool the building during day time reducing the load on the air conditioner. Such techniques would be effective if the electricity rates vary. Like the old long distance plans, having a peak and off-peak pricing alone would encourage the consumers to schedule their washing machines and dishwashers during the off-peak hours.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Alternative to batteries by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      having a peak and off-peak pricing alone would encourage the consumers to schedule their washing machines and dishwashers during the off-peak hours.

      This has been implemented in many places in Canada and EU. I'm not sure about the US but I'm sure smart meters are making their way into residential neighborhoods by now.

      It's also why many appliances have timers such as dish washer.

    2. Re:Alternative to batteries by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      I was used to this when living in the UK. Moved to the US, got the pool filtering 80% of the time at night, turned on the washing machine at night, after a year of this, wife asks why I do all this at night. "electricity is cheaper at night" "is it?" "of course...wait. maybe, lets ask your brother, he works for the power company" /askBrotherInLaw "hahahahha! No! we managed to get that killed quickly, some people tried it, and we can offer that if you /really/ want, but we stack it up so much, that you'll never make a return on the investment for all the equipment you need to plug in for a big building (and we don't offer it to regular consumers, only big office buildings that beg, so, yeah,not a chance. We've stacked it to cost you so much more than regular electricity rates" !So... that's great.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    3. Re:Alternative to batteries by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Electricity is cheaper at night if you have two meters.
      One for daytime and one for night.

      An ordinary household meter does not know if it is day or night, it simply counts kWh ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Alternative to batteries by stomv · · Score: 1

      This is still done, because large commercial sites don't have rates in the same structure as residential. Large commercial and industrial have demand charges -- they pay for energy (kWh) but also a rate according to their peak demand in the month (kW). By making ice at night, they help reduce their peak demand (kW), and so even if they don't have time-based energy charges, they make their savings by saving on the demand charge.

    5. Re:Alternative to batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just put a clock in it....

    6. Re:Alternative to batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's only cheaper if you have time of use rates

      Peak expensive
      Shoulder - cheaper than peak
      Off-Shoulder - cheaper but you should be asleep

  10. powering house with PV by gordona · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a 10 KW, grid tied battery backed up system in an all electric house. Everything except my deep well pump, washer/dryer, hot water, range and geothermal compressor are connected on the critical loads panel. Generally over the last 5 years or so, the system produces more power than used with the rest going to charging the batteries and powering the grid. However, there has only been a few times over the last several years that system has produced more than consumed from the grid. I estimate that I would need 30-50 kw to power everything. However, the geothermal compressor draws perhaps 5 kw for 4-5 minutes at a time and cycles several times an hour. Since the geothermal system works mostly at night or if we went off grid, the storage capacity of the battery backup would have to be increased substantially from the 16 KWH that we have now since the compressor would deplete the batteries in a few hours. None the less our electric bill is down at least 80% from pre-PV days.

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:powering house with PV by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      None the less our electric bill is down at least 80% from pre-PV days.

      Does that include the cost of the system?

    2. Re:powering house with PV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not, unless you think he's paying for the cost of the system each month, which is moronic of you. However, that's really pointless to ask.

      Does his electric cost drop include the cost of insulation? Does it include the cost of buying a better heater or AC system? No. NOBODY asks because we know it's fucking stupid to ask and has no bloody connection.

      But saving 80% of his costs (which will only help in the future as prices of energy WILL go up) saves each month, which means that he's able to survive better each month, whereas the system was already paid for. Generally you get an ROI of 10-20% per annum, which in these days of 4-5% on deposit index-linked accounts, that's a better investment than anything other than million-share trading through your personal broker, which most cannot afford at all. Better than property.

    3. Re:powering house with PV by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      None the less our electric bill is down at least 80% from pre-PV days.

      Does that include the cost of the system?

      Probably not.

      The cost of installation should be calculated here as though the money was borrowed from a bank and paid off each month. Then add that payment to the other monthly payments to get a comparison value per month.

      This would automatically include the "alternative cost", of not being able to use the money for something else. At least as an "average" value on the money market. (Of course the value to you would be different, depending on your situation.)

  11. Going off grid misconceptions by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

    Going off grid will not solve crotch itch. Stay on grid!

    --
    BM3
  12. This is about another kind of power by richrz · · Score: 1

    Governments would hate for everyone to be self sufficient as it takes away their ability to control our lives. Their ultimate wet dream is the iWatch that will zap you if you don't behave appropriately. Expect any tech that allows cutting the power line completely to your house to be scuttled for as long as possible.

    1. Re:This is about another kind of power by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Governments would hate for everyone to be self sufficient as it takes away their ability to control our lives. Their ultimate wet dream is the iWatch that will zap you if you don't behave appropriately. Expect any tech that allows cutting the power line completely to your house to be scuttled for as long as possible.

      That's actually at least somewhat true. Some people are convinced that they could successfully control the world. (They are wrong and it can be proved mathemetically, of course.)

      But it is not that governments are that way. It is that any large concentration of power attracts people like that. Including governments, but also other large organizations, even some charities.

  13. Very first world/American view. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article is written looking at the situation from the POV of an average American. The "grid" is practically non existent in large parts of Africa and South America and lots Asian countries. Even where it exists it is quite unreliable. But in almost all these countries the grid is often a state owned inefficient monopoly. The demand for electricity is high and there are lots of people willing to pay way over what the American utilities charge for power. There was an journalist who recounted rich folks in Karachi, Pakistan, driving around in their air conditioned luxury cars when the grid goes blackout. The counties might be poor, but these rich folks collectively far outnumber the middle class in America. They will provide the market, and the invisible hand will find providers. These folks will underwrite the R&D costs of moving off grid.

    Think about it: Half of India does not know when their next meal is going to be. Which means the other half has food security. Still they live in a hand to mouth existence. Half the rest are better off than hand to mouth. Half of the better than hand-to-mouth have decent disposable income. This 1/8 of the population of India is 125 million strong, as big an economy as Japan and bigger than many European countries. Living in a sea of dirt cheap labor, none of the labor saving devices would sell there. But anything not doable by throwing more people in, electric power or cell phone etc will have big markets there. Add Africa and South America, you can bet they will leap frog over the developed countries in off grid power, like India did with cell phones a decade ago.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Very first world/American view. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't get why bullshit like this gets a +5 insightful.

      The grid is non existing in south america? Wow ... in what desert do you live that you belief that?

      Sure, there are town in Sudan or any other African country which is still in the middle ages.

      The rest of both continents/subcontinents has a power grid since over 100 years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Very first world/American view. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of India does not know when their next meal is going to be.

      what a load of crap

  14. It is going to be every man for himself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So called contemporary civilization is incredibly fragile. Hurricane Katrina and what it did to New Orleans over the course of a few days demonstrated this perfectly. People participate in society solely out of self interest. Should it look like they'd fair better doing it on their own, they will, in a heart beat.

    My own community is also a great example of this. I live in Louisiana and locally we've seen lots of oil-related money flow in and enrich the locals over the last 5-10 years. What's happened over that time is acres and acres of spec-houses and strip-malls and ZERO infrastructure work. The power grid, roads, water/sewage, schools, and bridges are all rotting and insufficient to support this growth. This has exacerbated traffic issues on ancient two lane feeders to the bigger cities from the burbs. Taxes are cut more and more each year despite the increase in wealth of the average joe. This isn't because average joe want's to be good neighbors. It is because no one wants to pay a nickel to use or maintain anything public. It is just supposed to appear out of thin air and be meticulously maintained by the Keebler elves.

  15. Climate change is not the point by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    The point of wanting to go off the power grid is not to solve climate change. The point is to have a workable alternative should the power grid go off you.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Climate change is not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that only happened in Soviet Russia...

  16. dear elon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if i go 'off the grid' and power my home with one of your fancy new batteries.. how the fuck am i supposed to plug in my car? drain the house battery so i can drive to a store and exchange the house battery for another? then come home and have to drain that one to plug in the car again? (rinse, repeat)...

  17. Climate change is not the point -- indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here in Ontario we have a government obsessed with deploying wind turbines despite the fairly obvious fact that the intermittent winds here almost totally mismatch the power demand curve. On Easter weekend they forced the hydroelectric and nuclear folks to dump 25% of their scheduled output and exported power amounting to another 25% or so. Effectively their policies are forcing a gross overproduction of power while raising costs rapidly and trying to instill an end of the world conservation methodology on the citizenry. Behind the scenes a rapid buildout of gas turbines run to support the fluctuating wind output -- one suspects that as a result of this deployment more GHG that ever is being put out. Going off grid is looking ever more attractive -- a standby generator is the new fashion statement. One can assume that when the sky clouds over the power will fail. On grid to find them and in the darkness bind them... one grid to rule them all.

    1. Re:Climate change is not the point -- indeed by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Here in Ontario we have a government obsessed with deploying wind turbines despite the fairly obvious fact that the intermittent winds here almost totally mismatch the power demand curve. ...

      Laws like that are because Engineers are far too smart to run for political office. Same for all countries, I think.

  18. Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been living off the grid since 1997 with a solar powered system. The power is converted to AC with an 8000 watt inverter for my home and excess power is stored in a lead acid battery bank. My system wasn't purchased as complete but was built up for an approximate 5 year period until I could be completely self sufficient. I do have to use a gasoline generator to charge the battery bank when the sun doesn't shine for a few days. Other alternatives need to be developed to supplement solar for that very reason. The problem with the grid tie system is the power companies will never allow you to earn any income from your sale of the electrical product. They derate the price so that you will never get a payment from them. You could get an almost zero bill but it will never come out with you making anything. I never connected to the grid so I wouldn't become lazy and not complete my system. I know of the utility company's plan from others who have a grid tie system or have called them to ask of their approach to solar power returns. The greatest expense is the batteries. I am now going on my third set of expensive deep cycle batteries to keep my stuff going. A better battery would be so great. The Edison or Ni Fe battery sounds like the ideal approach to getting a reliable type that requires little maintenance. I haven't researched the Tesla battery yet but I am glad someone is at least doing something instead of just complaining. I am getting older now and the lead acid batteries are too heavy to just lug around for the changes after a few years of use. I value my independence and hear from my neighbors how they lost power during a storm when they needed it the most. I know this isn't the way for everyone but for those who are willing to try to breakaway from the socialist system of being hooked up for life this is the only way to go for now.

    1. Re:Living off the grid by responsibleusername · · Score: 1

      First off don't expect to be making use of Li-Ion batteries with your current system, most inverters and charge controllers are designed for lead acid batteries and would most likely not work for a Li-Ion system. Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid. There is extra hardware involved but you could likely break even keep your battery bank topped off from the grid making them last longer by being fully charged 99.9% of the time (and grid power is still more cost effective than adding more panels). Unfortunately if you are worried about socialism then you can't really be helped.

    2. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately if you are worried about socialism then you can't really be helped.

       
      Snide and baseless opinion by someone who admits that they really don't know what they're talking about. I'm surprised your UID isn't much lower.

    3. Re:Living off the grid by Ozoner · · Score: 1

      Have lived of-grid for over twenty years. Have a large battery bank, but only 600W of solar cells. That runs my house and workshop without ever needing to run a generator. The only concessions needed are no electric heating or cooling. I rely instead on good insulation and wood heating.

      The main barrier to Solar living is the typical American mentality, "I'm not going to live without my Air-conditioner/Clothes-dryer/Electric Heating".

      To my mind, frugal living gives many bonuses beside the ability to survive without the ever more expensive (and unreliable) mains power.

    4. Re:Living off the grid by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      The problem with the grid tie system is the power companies will never allow you to earn any income from your sale of the electrical product.

      How much do you earn from your sale of the electrical product with your off-the-grid solution?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:Living off the grid by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Yup. My jaw dropped upthread when I saw someone quote usage of 100 kWh/day.

      It gets to 35 and even 40 deg C and >90% humidity here in summer, but you can manage that sort of heat without refrigerated air conditioning, if you really want to.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    6. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me up until "the socialist system of being hooked up for life". The power grid is socialist? What?

    7. Re:Living off the grid by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It gets to 35 and even 40 deg C and >90% humidity here in summer, but you can manage that sort of heat without refrigerated air conditioning, if you really want to.

      And that is the thing, most people don't want to. At least not anyone who has enjoyed AC at some point in their life.

    8. Re:Living off the grid by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And that is the thing, most people don't want to. At least not anyone who has enjoyed AC at some point in their life.
      Might be true for americans.
      I personally don't want to work/live in summer time in a house that is cooled down to an absurd temperature.

      It is pretty "normal" that the outside and inside temperature varies over the year.

      It is pretty insane to air condition anything so that you can sit in a suit in summer time in your office.

      But yes, I learned from friends that wearing trousers with short legs in the "states" makes you suspicious to be gay (as a man) and you have a hard time to rent a house or flat.

      Sorry to say it again, FlyHelicopters, the world is not running the way your fucked up country is ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Living off the grid by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Buddy, I could almost admire what you claim to have accomplished here, except for two things:

      1. You're posting as Anonymous Coward instead of taking credit for what you claim to have done for yourself.
      2. Your claims about the electric grid/utility companies being 'socialist'; what the actual fuck, dude?

      Electric companies may seem heartless and evil sometimes, but face it: they're a for-profit venture in a capitalist system. So sorry your electric bills didn't have hearts and unicorns in them when you opened them, but that's the breaks I guess. As is that last sentence in your post makes you sound like a right-wing libertarian whack-job, and as such, you should just keep to yourself and not chime in on discussions about solar power at home -- you're just going to make everyone else look like a whack-job, too. Sorry to have to tell you but to get solar power generation at home to be even more mainstream is going to take the cooperation of the power generation companies and completely demonizing them by calling them 'socialist' or other baseless inaccurate insults isn't going to help with that in the least.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    10. Re: Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't want to live or work in the summer in an environment that isn't heavily cooled. The difference is, you seem to think everyone should adopt your personal likes and dislikes as their own, while i find it abhorrent to tell someone what they should like or want, rather than letting them decide that for themselves.

      Sure there may be times when people can't have what they want, but insisting that people should LIKE it sounds totally dystopian.

    11. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you can. That type of heat, humidity, and typical air pollution here would definitely keep me from working and possibly hospitalize me.

      Which is why I don't live places like that.

      AC isn't just a quality of life improvement for me -- it keeps diseases from acting up.

    12. Re:Living off the grid by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Second, there is no reason that you can't have a backup battery bank AND be connected to the grid.

      That's what I do. The extra hardware is really just a switched battery charger, but you could get better efficiency switching the entire AC output to grid instead of running everything through the battery and inverter.

      The panels run the house during the day and charge the batteries for night, but during extended cloudy weather or snow everything will run off the grid without any action on my part.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    13. Re:Living off the grid by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      How big of a battery bank do you have?

    14. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You insensitive clod; he could be Mr Freeze or a giant, sweaty fatty.

    15. Re:Living off the grid by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I personally don't want to work/live in summer time in a house that is cooled down to an absurd temperature.

      And that's fine, if you choose that, more power to you.

      Just be careful that you're not trying to choose it for other people too.

      It is pretty "normal" that the outside and inside temperature varies over the year.

      Yep, here it ranges from below 0 degrees C to above 40 degrees C. Needless to say, humans don't do very well in either extreme. That is why we build these places called "indoors".

      It is pretty insane to air condition anything so that you can sit in a suit in summer time in your office.

      That is a personal opinion and a judgement, not a fact. If you don't like it, fine. But don't call other people who choose it "insane". I could easily call what you do "insane", but I don't, because I respect your right to do without.

    16. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I shouldn't even respond to your misunderstanding I will clarify my post. I don't know why it posts me as Anonymous Coward that wasn't my idea but to post I was ok with it because you don't know me anyway. I tell everyone about my system and was helping a building contractor to learn how to construct his new homes to be equipped as solar powered. He lost interest when the housing market collapsed in 2007 and didn't build anymore houses. The people I tell have an interest in becoming self-sufficient but lack a desire to do things for themselves and the cost is still greater than what they want to invest in. There are very few people in my area that use solar but the ones that do don't like the idea that the utility for profit companies do not view the individual as an equal to sell a product of electricity to them for their distribution. I never connected to the grid when I built my 2300 sq. ft. home in 1997 so I am not really concerned with them even though I would have a surplus product to sell when my battery controllers shut off around noon. My power system wasn't cheap or given to me from the income of others to build a power distribution system. A childhood friend of mine is the president of a utility company in another state and has told me they only view the alternative energy as competitors and would just as well see it go away. There are many people who can't and or won't become self reliant because the system in place is too easy as long as you have the money to pay. I really consider myself to be a moderate because the extremes of either side are still in the same boat. They just don't want to work together to build a better world. My system isn't perfect and as I said I consider my power system and my life as an on going research project. I like new technologies and see the limitations for the ones we have.

    17. Re:Living off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not looking for a return I was only relaying information people who do have a grid tie system tell me. I am quite happy knowing that I have a system that works for me. A building contractor that I was helping to learn the requirements for a solar home was quite disappointed that he couldn't build a home that would generate an income for the owner by supplying power to the utility grid. My supervisor at work called the utility company in his area and was told that you would never be getting a check for your sold power. They will rerate the price you pay to lower the bill but you still pay them. An elderly man in my area with a grid tie has told me the same and that he has never even had a zero bill. Every bit does help and I have seen $400 monthly utility bills of my aunts and uncles total electric home along with their colorful comments about having to pay them. Perhaps socialist isn't a correct term because if it was they would work with everyone to help them keep their power to their home but as the capitalist we are they will pull your meter if you miss them payments. I have never heard of them rerating the price a home owner has to pay to keep the lights on based on income. As things stand now the entry price into the alternative energy field is still keeping most of my kind on the line. A friend I grew up with that is a president of a utility company said that the alternative industry is competitors that only complicate their work because they have plenty of power already so they are not really needed. I also read between the lines for where their power comes from and the network that has been established. My location made solar attractive considering the cost of running line and poles. The start up wasn't easy because I didn't grow up that way. It has been a learning and adaptation experience but it now works for me.

    18. Re:Living off the grid by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And I consider it my right to call people insane who think it is the 'correct' lifestyle to demand that they can wear inappropriated clothing in summer and for that need to cool down the house with oversized ACs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:Living off the grid by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That is fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Just so long as you don't try and impose it on others. But express away, freedom of speech and all that.

    20. Re:Living off the grid by responsibleusername · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but this is just a choice people would need to make. Its not mandatory, but it can be done and it has definite benefits from all grid-tie or all off-grid.

  19. Obvious by drfred79 · · Score: 0

    Because anthropomorphic global climate change activism was never actually about reversing the natural ebbs and flows in the planet's climate. It always was about a global political and economic system that is totalitarian in nature and socialis in economics.

  20. Misguided article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truly going off the grid usually means a commitment to using far less energy than most Americans

    Spot on. My friend and his wife have lived off-grid for 6 years, with a 1.2 kW PV array and 10 kWh of lead acid storage. Per person, they use about 22% of what we do at my house. That's a huge 5:1 ratio! They have almost every amenity we have. But as you might imagine, living with such a small electric power budget is a significant lifestyle change and at times downright inconvenient.

    Home batteries may be great for power outages, but it’s unclear whether they will do much to mitigate global warming. In fact, they could undermine large-scale efforts to combat climate change, by isolating energy production and usage rather than sharing it efficiently within a network.

    This is ridiculous on two fronts. First, it's obvious that the key environmental benefit of being off-grid is a huge decrease in consumption. The on-site production capability is so small in comparison to an on-grid home's use, the benefit of power sharing is negligible and unlikely worth the cost of the distribution network.

    Secondly, if the point is to reduce the ecological impact of energy production, who cares how that goal is achieved? The environment won't care. And while it is true that PV is capable of producing more power than is used or storable sometime, the ecological cost of *not* using that untapped production is near zero.

    This wasn't a very well thought out article, regardless of the impetus for its creation.

  21. don't feed monopolies by swell · · Score: 2

    California ratepayers have lost billions of dollars to our friendly utilities. You may recall Enron, who devastated the entire state by manipulating utility prices. Now we have the power plant at San Onofre shutting down because the utilities and the government overseers were incompetent. Because the California Public Utility Commission exists to assure Wall Street profits, and not ratepayer protection, we have a few billion more in costs that ratepayers are expected to pay (shareholders are still raking in big dividends/profits).

    So do you think it is a good idea to continue dependence upon the energy monopoly? How did you feel about the Microsoft monopoly? Is it good to have profit seeking telephone and cable and oil and water monopolies? When was this ever a good idea for ordinary consumers?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:don't feed monopolies by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Thank $DEITY I have SMUD. They are probably one of the few reasonable utilities in California. It is "customer owned" not a public corporation like PG&E

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  22. Stopping = Myth by gordguide · · Score: 1

    " ... spread misconceptions about what it takes to be self-sufficient — and stop global warming." ..." There will be no stopping of Global Warming. Maybe reducing the rate of Global Warming. But no stopping, or at least no stopping without a time machine.

    1. Re:Stopping = Myth by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course there will be stopping ...

      As soon as mankind is extinguished or down to a few million people ... we wont be able to wreck the planet more.

      Ofc, that implies that a huge deal of mankind dies to the self imposed global warming ... which they will, sooner or later.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Stopping = Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like the middle ages solar maximum and warmer weather than today killed 90% humans in Europe?
      Or did it?

  23. Badly arguing against a misquote. by responsibleusername · · Score: 1

    The OP makes it sound as if Tesla is advocating going off-grid, which I have not seen any mention of. The truth is that going off-grid is significantly more expensive than a more conventional grid tie system (both in equipment and grants/tax incentives). The tesla home battery has more potential as a buffering source within the grid that can serve as a home backup and provide power to the grid when it is needed. This is something the grid lacks now, and a grid that is more dependent on renewable sources (which are less reliable in the case of solar) will be more likely to need some flexibility, this is what I am excited about. I put together a small (1.5kw) offgrid solar system in the last few years (gradually adding to it), and it is definitely not the way to go from a cost perspective. It is off grid because it is literally off the grid, there is no powerlines running to it and it would cost a significant amount of money to run wires and it would cut through a fairly pristine forest. I've talked to a number of people who are on the grid about installing a system and I wouldn't recommend off-grid to any of them. I've lived off grid and there is no question that for better or worse we are better off together, power grid included.

  24. Leaf to Home by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Storing excess solar in one's car battery sounds like a plan. The leaf has a 24KW capacity with a 170km range. For a modest 2 person household that uses less than 10KW a day and typically drives a max of 60km in a single day in the suburbs, it makes sense.

    If the economics match up, of course and I'm sure they won't at least until the price of solar panels and electric cars falls drastically with economies-of-scale and/or subsidies. $AU40K for a hatchback (on Nissan's website) sounds excessive; these things aren't mass-sold in my country.

    1. Re:Leaf to Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is my plan. Use my solar panels with the grid to charge, but if I ever lose power for a few days, I have a big enough inverter to power the fridge and laptop.

      Australia could use electric cars for traveling around the cities, but it is a long way in-between the big cities down there. Lots of sunshine though for solar power.

  25. Renewables are defuse by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The big problem with maintaining a centralized energy grid is that renewables like wind and solar are defuse. They don't lend themselves well to big centralized power stations and make more sense just on everyone's roof.

    Here is my ideal.

    Everyone gets solar panels on their roofs and maybe a small wind turbine if they're in a really windy area. Possibly this stuff is bought and paid for by the government and the government will technically own the panels but they're just installed on everyone's roof.

    Then you have some sort of reasonable energy buffer in every home. I don't know if we have the technology to do this properly but you want something that has a very very long life. I'm talking about something that ideally doesn't have to be replaced ever. Maybe some maintenance now and again to fix a part of but the core investment should remain very stable. Some ideas would be an air pressure tank. You could have a 1000 gallon tank, bury it in the ground, and then use a compressor to fill it up when you have excess power and than drain it through a turbine when you need power. Obviously a very good chemical battery bank would probably be ideal but they're expensive and they deteriorate. Even the lead deep cycles.

    And when it comes to grid power, that power can come from nuclear, hydro electric, geothermal, etc. But solar and wind really make the most sense not in dense farms but just spread around on everyone's roof. The other nice thing about that is that you don't have to transmit most of that power. It is consumed at the point of generation which means the actual power demands of communities per person falls radically because they're mostly providing their own power.

    And you could even have municipal energy storage such that the community buys power during off peak hours from the grid which further makes the system more efficient.

    Energy storage is a big problem. Will Tesla's batteries solve the problem? I can't see how they could. They don't appear to do anything innovative besides just be large. That isn't good enough. They either need to be a lot cheaper or they need to last a lot longer.

    I saw something on slashdot awhile ago about all liquid municipal batteries that was sort of interesting. They basically just had a giant pool or tank and the various chemicals separated out by density. There was even an insulating compound that was between the two electrolytes.

    It was an interesting idea because it would be very cheap to build batteries like that. You just make a big concrete tank, possibly spray the inside with a protective coating, and then fill the tank up with the various chemical... and then leave them alone for a bit to let all the chemicals organize by density... and then stick the electrode and cathode into the relevant layer and bam... giant fucking battery.

    I'm not sure what kind of corrosion would deterioration would happen. I assume you'd want to pump portions of each of the chemicals out to either be replaced or filtered, or reprocessed at some interval. If you're really efficient you would do that constantly but at about the rate the various compounds became contaminated. If you match the purification speed to the inherent contamination speed, the battery would technically be stable indefinitely.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  26. My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been fortunate enough to live entirely (100%) off-grid for several years now. When I went to build my house we quickly determined that it wasn't worth it to have power brought back to the house site (I'm 5 miles up in the mountains) and after looking at wind for a bit I went with a solar setup. It's been an interesting experience, and reading the article I can't really say I agree with the author on most points.

    I have a 36 panel system that theoretically can create ~40kwh/day on the average day. I have 20 batteries (used to be 24) to cover overnight and overcast/bad weather storage.

    First off there's no question that I don't have anywhere near enough batteries. My solar guy used a variety of online calculators to figure out the size and needed and both underestimated my requirements and overestimated the amount of daily discharge the system could handle. As a result we bought a vastly undersized battery system (~1350AH when it was new, more like 750AH now) that we ended up discharging around 75% nearly every night. This is turn is a deadly drain on your batteries and drew down my system sharply to its current capabilities. My own back-of-the-envelope calculations show that I need a system more like 3000AH in capacity to properly power the whole house for a couple of days (if needed). My propane backup generator gets run far more than it ought right now.

    Leaving that annoyance to one side though, being off-grid and responsible for my own power (and water; I have an excellent well) is nothing short of awesome! It's my power! I can do what I want, run what I want, and the only thing I have to worry about is what my supply is (when it's at night).

    Mind you I've done all kinds of things to be more efficient of course. I am in an ongoing process of replacing all of my CFLs and the handful of incandescents still around with LEDs as I find LEDs that are both price-rational and workable for the task. I just replaced 42 halogen track lights with some excellent LEDs I tracked down from a company named Torchstar and that made a huge difference--I basically hadn't used those tracks at all since we built the house since they were so energy expensive. The house itself is an ICF (Insulated Concrete Form) house and very efficient (13" thick walls), with the entire house heated with radiant heat as opposed to a more typical forced air system. Over the years I've learned to take advantage of a strong sunlight day and run dishwashers and the clothes when the sun is out.

    My biggest intermediate goal is to replace the battery stack with something more appropriate. There are several high-amp setups out there that I should be able to make work and I hope to do so next spring (I'm going to be driven to this anyway by the slow death of my current stack). Longer term I'd like to add even more panels until I'm up to 54, not so much for added storage (there's only so much you can put in the batteries and I should have that covered) but to increase the surface area of collection during a cloudy day (the panels will make power even in overcast, so more in that case is better). I think my inverters (two of them, 4000W each) are sized appropriately, though I'll have to add another charge controller when the new panels go in. I just built a new shed to house all of the batteries (it's also ICF) and will be rigging it with a solar heating system this summer; this will keep the batteries warm and toasty during the harsh winters. Even longer term (years), I want to enclose the upstairs deck with a greenhouse, which would help make me more self-sufficient food wise.

    I wouldn't change it for the world, honestly....being utterly independent is just a different but good feeling.

    If anybody has questions, just ask!

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    1. Re:My Off Grid Experience by dwywit · · Score: 2

      Finally, someone on here who gets it. The independence of being off-grid is just, well, incomparable to anything else - especially when the grid here was out for 3 days in 2011 after a cyclone. All my grid-connected neighbours had to throw out the contents of their freezers and refrigerators, and they didn't have flushing toilets (no electricity=no water pumps. They had to put buckets out in the rain to catch water).

      Have you considered a dual battery system instead of a single large system? Plasmatronics controllers can switch the current to a second battery bank when the first one hits float, so perhaps a ~1300ah bank plus a 1000ah bank might work. I'd do it if I had the $$$. I have a 1320ah bank, and it's just barely adequate. I think about 2000ah would do the job. They'll be due for replacement in a few more years, perhaps the options and pricing will be suitable at that time for a little experimentation - or perhaps Li-ion technology will have matured sufficiently by then.

      P.S. can you point me to anything regarding conversion of petrol generators to propane?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Brother lives very much like you. The difference with him is that he lives in the Tropics where sunlight isn't a problem. Like you he suffers from Battery degredation. He's just bought a load of old Telephone Exchange batteries. They are on their way to him in a couple of containers. He'll use those containers to house them when they get on-site.
      He uses an anerobic digestor to compost stuff and capture the Methane. He uses this for his cooking. Because he has so much gas he's thinking of loghing at least part of his home with Gas Lamps!
      His other project is to install a water turbine in the small river that runs through his property. This also provides his fresh water.

      If he could get his 4x4 to run on Methane then he'd be truly off grid. That is a future project.

      His favourite saying is 'Where there's a will there's a way.'

    3. Re:My Off Grid Experience by sploxx · · Score: 1

      You are living my dream! Are you living alone or with family in your house?

    4. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can relate to your experience for living off the grid. I have the post a few lines up. I am not really an anonymous coward I don't know why it posts me that way but I am ok with it. Actually I am quite proud of my system and tell everyone about it. Everyone is interested but lacks the desire to take that step into the independence of having to do things for themselves. There is such a great feeling knowing that you are responsible for your own resources. The set up you have is similar to mine so I understand what you have been experiencing. There are so few of us to brave an existence into the unknown during this time period. I consider my solar powered system and life as an on going research project since there is little experience out there to draw from. The batteries we have to chose from are probably my worst complaint. The Ni Fe battery originally called the Edison battery has such interesting qualities that I wish someone would take on to produce them at a lower cost. The expected life span of the battery is 50 to 80 years with an ability to be almost completely drained and recharged repeatedly. Their cost is so outrageous that it is not feasible to purchase them in the quantity needed for enough storage from the solar panels. There are 2 companies in the US that are making them and 1 in China that does for about 1/3 of the cost but then I read that they can not be transported across the US if imported because of the electrolyte in the batteries. I just lost my lead acid deep cycle battery bank this winter after only 6 years of use and am now replacing them at another great but necessary cost to keep my independence. I have researched the electrolysis of water with solar power for hydrogen gas that could be stored to run a generator or passed thorough a fuel cell but that may have to be the next step after this new battery bank has been depleted. It is good to know someone else out there is living the dream too. Thanks for your post.

    5. Re:My Off Grid Experience by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      You may want to get a quote from beutilityfree.com, who resells the Chinese Ni-Fe batteries. They're based in Colorado.

      --
      Be relentless!
    6. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone on here who gets it. The independence of being off-grid is just, well, incomparable to anything else - especially when the grid here was out for 3 days in 2011 after a cyclone. All my grid-connected neighbours had to throw out the contents of their freezers and refrigerators, and they didn't have flushing toilets (no electricity=no water pumps. They had to put buckets out in the rain to catch water).

      YES! That's precisely right....I have power and utilities and lights and cable and internet and everything even when the local power grid is out entirely. It's totally awesome.

      I haven't given much thought to a dual battery system, no. While I have two charge controllers it would at least require me to pick up another Mate in order to monitor/control an entirely separate bank, and I don't usually have a problem with the batteries tapping out to full (lots of panels) anyway. I just don't frick'in have enough batteries really.

      I'm sorry, I don't know anything about converting generators. I picked up a relatively small propane generator from Outback called the Ecogen....it's a great little puppy and made especially for off-grid situations. Very pleased with it; it's holding up well and should get me through to the new battery stack! :)

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    7. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Wow that's amazing! He actually gets enough methane to do this? Remarkable.....I definitely envy him on that.

      My batteries are a quite frustrating situation. My solar guy (who really did mean well) just plain undersized the system. To make it worse he knew I didn't want to bother with ongoing maintenance, so he selected Gel batteries for the system. Gel batteries are quite fine but meant more for things like remote towers and the like, with little deep discharge. Given that my system was heavily discharging it only took a year or so to see a definite degradation of their capacity.

      The next batts will be AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat). These also don't require any maintenance but are both more forgiving of the occasional deep discharge and not subject to overcharge (which in Gel batts causes big burned "bubbles" in the Gel).

      Your brother is doing remarkably I dare say. I'd have a lot of trouble with bears if I did that, but it's working for him and that's awesome! Tell him he's got a fan here in Colorado!

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    8. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Christ! What the hell are you running that burns through 48 kWh overnight? My whole house running my 5 kW central air compressor in the summer through 110-degree heat and charging my Prius plug-in doesn't even burn up that kind of power in a whole 24-hour period.

    9. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Small family (just my mother). I built her her own apartment at the opposite end of the house, divided from the main house by the garage. I wanted her to be as independent as possible.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    10. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      You're quite welcome!

      Question for you--do you find that the well pump is basically your single largest power draw (when it kicks on)? It's astonishing to me. Fortunately I have an 80 gallon water tank so it doesn't run often, but still it's a huge draw.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    11. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Not really sure if that's in response to me or not...

      If it is then the simple answer is I have a fairly large house and I never intended it to be the "typical off-grid house". This is a modern house with all manner of modern stuff. I use between 600W and 1000W per hour most hours, a little more if things all come on at the same time or something. My current battery stack simply can't handle anywhere near that much (it really couldn't even when it was new, much less so now that the batts have been damaged and inadvertently abused). My next battery stack will be able to power me for three days if I don't get much or any sunlight which will more than handle all but the darkest stretches.

      LED bulbs will only get you so far--you've still got well pumps and microwave ovens and circulation pumps that will do their thing from time to time. Even the Grundfos pumps (which are what I have) still use power.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    12. Re:My Off Grid Experience by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Is more of a tiny house/cabin then or a just a bit more remote typical suburban home? I'm interested in that whole tiny house movement, but it seems to be hard to find good, quiet nice spots to live here in Europe compared to the U.S. For some reason, my personal standards seem to rise with respect to the awesomeness of the plot of land to build on and at the same time they fall with the amount of space available inside :D

    13. Re:My Off Grid Experience by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Nah, I must admit this is a pretty good sized house.

      I'd lived in tiny houses my whole life; when the time came to build I'd decided I wasn't going to do that again.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  27. Tesla v Edison, round 2! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus leading to the whole ac/doc power transmission debate, reborn...

  28. It's economics stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not going green that's making people move to Solar and make them want 'off the grid' solutions, it's the greed of the existing energy suppliers.

    And as for storing power in a car battery, well doh, stupid. If you use the electric car to commute to work - which is the only reason to have one, it's not at home to act as storage when the excess from solar is available, and you'll still be charging it at night off the grid.

  29. The core of the issue by m.dillon · · Score: 2

    The core of the issue has nothing to do with going off-grid and everything to do with matching production from renewal sources to the actual load on the grid. Without that we get into the situation that Germany finds itself in, which is two fold: (1) That electricity prices fall to zero during the day due to all the solar, and as subsidies go away the owners can't make money from providing power to the grid. And (2) The base load differential between day and night is so great that the traditional generation (i.e. coal) cannot run continuously at critical mass and so becomes extremely inefficient and uneconomical. So coal power generation companies in Germany are also going bankrupt.

    Ultimately consumers with PV systems will be forced to pay spot rates and feel the pain. This is already beginning to happen in many parts of the country... where day-time electricity rates are lower but the buy-back is also lower, and night-time rates are higher and have a higher buy-back.

    The idea with using the electric car battery (or some other form of temporary storage) is to use it store energy when prices are cheap and inject it into the grid when prices are expensive. This also has the side effect of reducing the base load differential between day and night, so other generation sources such as nuclear and coal can operate efficiently (and thus profitably) to make up the difference.

    There is nothing nefarious going on. Really, going entirely off-grid is not something anyone should be trying to do unless they actually live somewhere with a flaky grid (or no grid). And the reality is that electricity prices are going to fluctuate even more between day and night, or rainy vs not, or windy vs not, as more renewable energy sources are brought online.

    -Matt

    1. Re:The core of the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If utilities had to buy back power at spot rates, meaning 5 times more per kWh at night, the economics would drive people to install battery banks just to sell power back to the utility at night once prices started going up for off-peak power.

  30. Why should a public utility by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that we all make use of for a modern life be a source of profit? I don't see the point of these sorts of rent seeking schemes people subscribe to under the guise of "efficiency". Ever instance of gov't waste I've ever seen has existed for one of two purposes: either corruption or round about socialism. Properly funded Post Offices and DMVs are fast, efficient and a pleasure to use. Now, when a bunch of "Starve the Beast" (google it) types cut there funding, yeah, you wait a while. But then you're just falling into their trap then, aren't you?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, more likely, we'll need less energy because there will be less people.

  32. Because the grid ISN'T a capacitor or reservoir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might as well say "Why doesn't cloud storage keep all the data stored inside the ethernet cables?"

  33. Hmm guess we are at stage II/III by einar.petersen · · Score: 2

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi How true those words ring with the prepper puns, we see the journalist poking at the day trader and others even as we see the utilities fighting/lobbying the political establishment in order to lay out roadblocks to those who wish to be self sustainable. I guess the 'kooks' and visionaries like Musk will just have plod along through the muck stirred up by the powers that be and work even harder at reaching the goal of creating a better world for everyone, a world where the playing field hopefully is evened out and cards not stacked in in anybodies favour. So to all you 'kooks' and visionaries out there keep up the good work they are running scared and that is why you are facing ridicule and animosity. Kudos to you all!

    --
    MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
  34. i live off the grid completely... no other option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live off-grid here at home, as there is no other choice on our mountain.
    While I look forward to adding a wind turbine, and have even thought of steam boiler powered turbines for those gray windless winter days here (as i heat with wood anyway) currently it's just 2 solar panels and 480 watts of total max production in full sunlight, which works out to "yeah you can run a few lights and your net router and a laptop or 2 during the night, but generally it's better to charge your phone and stuff during the day"
    As long as the general public considers electrical heating an options (resistance elements can suck batteries dry in minutes... basically a short circuit on purpose)
    and as long as hair dryers exist and people who use them, we are doomed :)
    electronics, per se, can consume very little... my 13" macbook pro with 60w power supply uses less than 20w during normal usage, fyi

  35. Flawed Premice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to back up first.

    First we need to re-gain control of government. (the source of all these assumptions, presumptions, and laws and resultant deaths, thefts, and pain torture)
    Because without that, nothing else can be discused.

    It's that bad.

    You will never be "off grid" with governments (yes more than one) operating the way they do right now.

    An example is Executive order saying during time of emergency, they can come and take my solar panels away. so I don't have a right to own property either, if it can be taken by some oath breaking president. While you might argue that I am a piece of crap and who cares about me or my rights, the truth is, the moment that it happens I Have to re-define what it means to be off grid or to even have rights. I have to decide if I want to fight to my death to uphold the constitution at all.

    The treason which allows this United Nations agenda 21 in, that's where the problem is.
    The fact all these discussions are but side shows until some fucking control of government is rendered out.

    I Ain't even getting into the FRAUD of greens or the fake things that make you THINK your going off grid.
    I ain't getting into the FRAUD by the media.
    I ain't getting into the FRAUD by corporations for subsidys.
    I ain't getting into the GOOD NEWS stories either.

    None of this shit matters anymore, because we have LOST CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT, with this SPYING SHIT and MEDICAL SHIT

    Fucking NOTHING WILL EVER move forward until this virus is removed.
    IT's LIGHTS OUT ON THE HUMAN RACE.

    That's why it's important.
    That's why some of us swore an OATH, so help us god!
    The tools to take care of this mess have been taken away in some places now.
    so wake up. next time government or these fuckign banksters fucks up, you might just die.

    ANd You want to hate on me? Call me the terrorist? Motherfucker I was BORN HERE.
    You get your commie fucking flag out.

  36. not paying me by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    Our power company is paying only 6c/kwh. It's not worth it to charge up someone elses fecking electric car.
    A smart grid isn't required, it's happening anyway with a dumb network.
    More panels in a local LV network gives a better proportion of solar going into all your neighbours.
    Governments are only taking care of rich pricks.
    It's up to people to lead the way, it's helping your neighbours, it's a community thing.
    Think globally, act locally.
    I'm getting some NiFe batteries.

    --
    Go well
  37. Oh look - it's "ClimateDot". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's our 'climate change' bullshit article of the day! Come on, 'ClimateDot', you're slipping! Only ONE 'climate change' article? Surely you mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming'?

    www.climatedepot.com
    www.wattsupwiththat.com

  38. Where's the plug on my water heater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep trying to find that outlet...

  39. Hmmmm.... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a lot of these climate change folks don't like any solution that doesn't include more central control of everything...with them at the controls...

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  40. non-traditional batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So here's my question for all you engineers and chemists...

    One of the things that we have in abundance in any alternative power installation is space. Most batteries are designed to be used in minimal space. Even lead-acid batteries are quite small.

    Isn't there some low-density but high volume chemistry that could more effectively address this problem? I'm thinking something along the lines of filling 55 gallon drums with a magic solution, dropping an anode and a cathode rod in and Bob's your uncle.

    Thoughts?

    1. Re:non-traditional batteries? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Even lead-acid batteries are quite small.

      Oh god no. According to the EIA average US house uses about 30 kWh a day.

      Lead-acid batteries do not like to be run down past 50%, and if you want them to last even a few years, 65% is the minimum. So if you want one day of storage, you'll need 75 kWh worth of batteries. A 75 kWh lead-acid battery bank would fill a bedroom. That is not small.

      Li-ion has two to three times the energy density. It can also be repeatedly drawn down to 20%, and that number is improving. So for that same 30 kWh home, you would need about 40 kWh of li-ion, so the total battery bank size would be at *least* 4 times smaller, about the size of a small fridge.

      But what you really need to do is just improve the homes. Last year I was burning about 15 kWh a day on average, about 1/2 the average US home, and significantly less than the 25 kWh average for Canada. I replaced all the light bulbs with LEDs and upgraded my computer (which uses less energy), and since then my average is 11 kWh. With li-ion, that would be a beer fridge.

  41. The Grid is inherently corruptable by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 0

    Efficiency rates are irrelevant. Being on the grid, it is only a matter of time before you will be screwed. I'm sorry to say that the world is every man for himself by nature.

  42. This article is complete bologna by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    A while back an article was /.ed that suggested that jets were a big problem for GHGs. But they didn't have a single number in the article. If you simply looked up the numbers, you'd find that jets give off 10% of the GHGs that cars do. That means that even if you reduce the jets emissions to zero, that would be as effective as reducing the cars only 10%. And we can reduce cars by 10%. Easily.

    The point is that, like any problem solving exercise, you start with the biggest problem and then work your way down the list. And in this case, cars are a much bigger problems than jets, so you start with the cars.

    And now we have an article that suggests we shouldn't improve home energy use because that would somehow stop us from fixing the problem in "most of the world". Once again, not a single number.

    Well here's some numbers:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html

    As you can see, the United States and China are the problem. A 10% reduction in China is the same as all of Canada, South America and Oceana put together. So if we're going to fix the problem, that's where you start. And the Chinese are perfectly capable of doing this without our help.

    The article is bizarre if you think about it. I shouldn't use LED light bulbs because that lets the power company off the hook to solve their problems? Wow, some logic.

  43. Perfect example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a perfect example of things the government/Progressives will NEVER allow you to become self-sufficient in.

    Nor is this some worldwide conspiracy. You always have assholes in the local government willing to spend time and resources f#$king with people who only want to be left alone. Many communities have already passed ordinances making it illegal to be unplugged from the local power company, all for different reasons.

    The more I read many of the opinions of folks on Slashdot the more I am convinced Slashdot is just another Huffington Post. LOL, yeah, I know a large number will consider that a compliment. Believe me, it is not.

  44. Re:i live off the grid completely... no other opti by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    One of the first things I did once we moved in was to ban all electric space heaters--they all went to the ARC. As you say they're immense draws and will take a battery stack down faster than nearly anything.

    Now, since then I've relented slightly and picked up a couple of small (200W) heaters off of Amazon for my mother. Even though she keeps her apartment area at Bermuda-like levels (~85 degrees F) she still can get cold when she first gets up on a winter morning, so one of these under her blanket over the easy chair does wonders. But that's basically my only concession there.

    I did also move all of my computing to a laptop but that was mostly because the desktop died and I've decided to redo my computer room (basically a third story tower room). But by the time I have that up and running I'll have the new battery stack and won't be as worried about it.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  45. Editorial Rejected by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    and stop global warming." Stover worries that shifting responsibility for solutions to climate change from governments to individuals creates an 'every-man-for-himself'

    Your unfounded opinions built upon a foundation of conjecture and alarmist kiltflipping has been rejected, and placed upon the waste pile where all other internet puffery goes.

    • Who the fuck wrote that shit anyway?
    • who the fuck thinks it should be news?
    • who the fuck posted this shit on slashdot?
    • why haven't we cut off all 20 of their fingers yet?
    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.