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."

49 of 281 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
  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 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???
    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

  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 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?

    3. 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???
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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???
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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...
  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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

  15. 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