How does a $0.00 electric bill sound?
By SilentPatriot Friday Nov 21, 2008 5:30am
DOWNLOAD (20)
PLAY (91)
How nice would it be to open your electric bill every month and read that you own exactly ZERO dollars? Well, that's a reality for this Delaware resident who took it upon herself to install solar panels on the roof of her home. In a delicious bit of irony, across the river from her house is the Salem, NJ, nuclear power plant. As the MSNBC anchor says, it's a perfect illustration of old school power vs. new school power. If solar panels and $0.00 energy bills are the future, that's something this blogger is really looking forward to.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bring 'em on! Add an electric car to the mix and no gas costs either.
Shocking.
I had a quote to get a modest studio off the grid. 20 3 x 5 panels and 36,000 dollars. You don't have to do the math. It would never pay for itself with a bill of 40 per month.
The truth is the guy didn't know what he was talking about or he was lying. It doesn't cost that much to convert, but you do have to use less power to make it work.
$40 a month for electric? Damn, that's sweet. My lowest electric bill for the year in Arizona is around $65 a month and of course I top out during the summer months at $300 a month.
But yes, even cutting your electric by 50% using solar panels is a huge savings.
Don't you have the option of using evaporative cooling in Arizona anymore? It's much cheaper, and comfortable too. I lived in Tucson for several years long ago, and that's what practically everyone used.
When I bought the house it did not have a "swamp cooler", but instead has this funky air/heating unit on top of the house. It would cost a fortune to replace the units.
I am purchasing a new home in February and will be looking to install solar panels to cut the electric bill by at least 50%.
It's not a huge savings if you pay $20k for the solar panels. If you finance that for 5 years, you'll be paying $400/month for that long.
In the NW we DO have the lowest energy costs. But even though my building is uninsulated, the windows are single pane, I might get a 2 month electrical bill for $100 in Feb or April.
But I never run the heat up past 55 or 60. Makes it easier to go outside, and I know that I'm not heating up so much of the outdoors as well.
!
Germany has more solar than any country in the world and they don't get as much sun as San Francisco for example. Earlier this year in the SF Chronicle there was a story about solar power in SF and one of the homeowners interviewed lives in the sunset district, which is not known for its sunny days, because he has a huge sign on his lawn promoting solar power. He was asked if his meter runs backwards on cloudy days and he said yes it does, just not as fast as sunny days. But the fact is there is going to be a whole mix of energy sources including solar, wind (Pickens is right on this, in fact much of the wind power being put in is in the midwest), geothermal etc. With the electric grid being powered with so much non polluting sources the natural thing is to run electric vehicles from it. It is the future despite what you hear from people who insist it won't happen.
Is extremely uneducated and misinformed. I am about 6 months away from getting my PhD in electronic microdevices, and have tons of friends working on solar cells. Trust me when I tell you, they are the future.
That it took that much money in labor, paper processing, stamps, etc to send her a bill for $0. If she was really green, she should be going paperless.
Equivalent of 3 billion barrels of oil ( BTUs ) falls on the earth every day. Capture that and let the middle east figure it out among themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp6Zx_fzpq8
about what will happen to the world if/when we begin capturing most of its sunlight to produce electricity. Will the mean temperature of the earth cool down because photonic energy that would normally have been lost to the earth's surface, probably adsorbed as heat, is being used elsewhere?
Just something I think about :)
solar panel canopies over all of the trees and oceans, I doubt there's much to worry about. Rather, I'm more worried about the cost of maintenance for the solar panels and if they can last well after they've started paying for themselves.
I would do this if it was cost effective. One thing Obama can do is offer people a huge rebate for solar panels. That would ease the pain of how much they cost.
Moore's law, describing the exponential increase in computing power over time (yes, I'm simplifying a little bit), applies to solar panels as well. In 7-10 years, it's likely to be cheaper to put the panels in than it is to pay the electric company. And I can't wait for that day.
is 100% correct, although the doubling time for solar panels is longer than 18 months (which is what Moore's law states for transistors). But in essence you are correct, and as efficiency and most importantly raw material cost (right now we use EGS silicon, MGS would cut the cost 10x) come down, solar panels will get awfully cheap.
they'd PAY for the transition themselves.
They've wasted over $3 TRILLION in Iraq already.
Half of that would have bought a decent solar voltaic coll3ector for every home in the USofA.
..that's why I think Obama's stimulus plan should be take $30 billion or so of the $2 trillion they're giving to banks, and speculators and CEO's and other assorted thieves, and give every adult citizen of the US a check for $1 million.
That would get spent on things like new enegy sources, new technologies, new vehicles, whatever - putting the capital straight
into the economy, instead of into the hands of crooks (& liars).
If we were to take the $700,000,000,000.00 we're handing to the banks and instead give it directly back to the American public (approx. population 305,709,000 - every man woman and child) that would be about $2,290.00 per person... which would make for a pretty decent financial stimulus. A family of four would get $9,160.00 to put toward their home, car, business, debts or savings.
I'm not a financial expert but that sounds a lot smarter than giving it to banks who are just hoarding it to improve their solvency. Too bad that option was never considered by our elected reps. "Of the people, by the people and for the Fortune 500."
We spend an average of about $100 a month with our solar panels.
Roughly.
Between city ordinances and Neighborhood Covenants there are too many restrictions on going green.
This needs to change, but unfortunately the money that you might save is revenue that your city or town will not be able to collect in utility fees, and these entities may not be so willing to give up those fees.
Always remember that your town, city, or incorporated village, is an entity unto itself, and that entity recognizes the home as a source for collecting revenue. It matters not who lives in the home, it is the revenue collected from the home that is of value to the city.
IMHO. I would never live within one. Incorporated cities and towns offer services at least, but clearly, if we are to get serious about energy conservation, some relaxing of rules are necessary. Best bet is to live in unincorporated county areas, where possible.
n/t
I wouldn't live in one of those weird little enclaves if you gave me the house.
in our neighborhood; we picked this neighborhood for it's racial mix and no HOA.
The spread of alternative sources of domestic energy production awaits one single factor: How do the big money guys collect the big money?
Nothing is gonna change until and unless there is some way the big investors can charge you, the people, for the energy you produce yourselves.
Because, unless they do, the burden of generation of all that energy, and the costs assiciated with generation, transmission, and distribution is gonna have to borne by the big industrial users who are, of course, the same big money guys who are now preventing the widespread promulgation of energy efficiency until they can figure out how to get their cut...
... you can sell the extra electricity to the company and recoup some of the expense.
I don't want to open my bill and see I OWN zero dollars, but that I OWE that much sounds peachy to me!!!
all new construction should be required to incorporate energy efficiency technologies: solar water hating collectors and solar photovoltaic collectors, high efficiency insulation, and light/white roofing materials to reflect solar energy NOT collected back into space and thereby to mimic the reflectiveness of the sonnn-to-be-departed polar ice-cap...
Heat pump technology should be just about universal, too...
If there is any thruth to the claim that energy self-sufficiency is in the national interest, then the fooking GOVT ought to be underwriting the expenses...
For gods sake, can't you people proof read?
Is "Deleware" near Delaware? Are the TV folks who do the captions trained in spelling?
We cannot continue to support outdated business models to prop up revenue streams. This is backward thinking - literally putting the cart before the horse.
That's what the auto makers want - they refused to change with the times and NOW they want us, the taxpayer to prop them up by supporting their outdated business model.
That's what Wall Stret wants - the ability to keep thieving, hiding and lying and getting support from Washington to do it - and pawn off the debt on the taxpayer when their "business model" built on lies doesn't work any more.
If you build it they will come. There are other revenue streams to be had - for all we know the municipalities, villages or towns could become the distributors for solar panels or provide the servicing for them as they would with a public utility.
But saying that the old way of doing business is making them money and that's why we should keep it - I know that's not what you're saying - but that they're going to fight tooth and nail against change - but that's why we have to fight back and force change where it benefits us all, not just the privileged few.
The work of retrofitting every building in the USofA with a functioning solar collector of some kind would supply jobs for the thousands of people who are going to be put out of work by th3e Pukes as they destroy th Unions by bankrupting the Big 3...
Delaware has (or at least had) a pretty sweet tax credit/rebate program, which helps absorb the cost of installation. The problem is that in most states, alternative energy credits are funded on a year-to-year basis, and it makes manufacturers and installers very nervous about moving into a state that may yank their market out from under their feet. It happens all the time, because these things are usually funded as an afterthought.
"... you can sell the extra electricity to the company and recoup some of the expense."
Not necessarily. My electric company (a co-op, no less) will give you credit for electricity fed back into the grid, but will not pay you for it. So your bill can go to $0, but all the power you feed after that point is free to them. Bottom line - check your electric company's policy, or better yet, check what your state laws are.
The Solar Energy Industries Association is the manufacturer and installer industry org - and lobbying arm. Not all lobbying is bad. My regional SEIA (MD-DC-VA) is having its annual conference in Annapolis December 5.
HOAs will be a stumbling block, but there are panels coming on to the market with a more acceptable appearance, like faux slate.
That page is blank. Any other links?
there MIGHT be a chance of progress.
If he merely appoints another conventional energy/big-bidness clone, then he's fucked us...
I'm not optimistic (but then I seldom am)...
Funny to see nuclear power described as "old school" and getting power from the sun as "new school."
Ain't cheap. Panels,frame, Inverter, batteries,cables,and installation.
I doesn't look like alot, but a house like that. To completely juice up.Refrigerator is the big one, you can get a propane one. But they're costly too.
For a house like that, minimum, 10k.
I've been there. We bought a $6000 system, and a $1000+ wind generator. We never hooked them up because we realized we couldn't run our freezer or heat lamps.
In addition, the power company won't let you feed back into the grid without their own controllers, which they charge over $1000 to install, AND if you manage to not use any of their power, they hit you with a $20 "meter reading" charge!
But big energy is not going to let this happen without a war
Check out this guys setup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw
Granted, he had help from grants and such, but it's nifty seeing how one can be entirely self sufficient in regards to home energy consumption. From Solar energy to Battery to Hydrogen electrolysis to geothermal to hydrogen gas to cook with to his cars.
The man pays ZERO for ALL his energy consumption.
(Happens to be in NJ too)
We'll all have solar power once they figure out how to put a meter on the sun.
http://www.surplusshed.com
note...not affiliated in any way. I use them for MY solar parts.
I would love to put these on my home....but I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on it. What makes them so expensive?
have not been applied to the construction, distribution, and installation.
These installations are essentially custom work.
Until the Govt invests in the development and manufacture of these technologies, they'll remain in the province of wealthy eccentrics like ed begley jr...
...it doesn't have to be just "the gov't" doing the investing. There must be some entrepreneurs out there with actual cash who could do it as a private enterprise. Pickens is out there inspiring folks - I know he's just tying to generate wealth for himself - but I think that will get some other smart folks thinking and inventing and investing in their own futures.
Is pushing natural Gas and Wind.
Home solar installations are NOT profitable for corporate investors, therefore, home solar is not well supported by Gov't programs.
This is just wrong and needs to change.
Governments purpose is NOT to safeguard corporate profit.
...I'm just saying that he is bringing this stuff "top of mind" for lots of people who never give any thought to how we might get ourselves out of this pickle. It may inspire some to invent, invest in something completely different.
Our government IS the corporations - they dictate the policy, Congress just rubberstamps - one form of fascism.
There'll be change - but only if we do it, and not the gov't.
What makes them so expensive? PV production is very costly but there are other components needed to control the electricity once produced and devices to store the energy during non-production times. All this stuff adds up.
I have a home in New Mexico, totally off grid. I have a 24 volt solar system with 6 solar panels (capcicity of 8 panels) that runs my entire home. I have no problems.....if it is cloudy I just don't run dishwasher at the same time as my clothes washer/dryer. The Obama administration needs to put forth a bill that will give 'big' rebates for installing wind, solar, and geothermal in residential areas making it affordable for individual home owners. In cities like Minneapolis they don't allow wind turbines installed in residential areas; this needs to be changed.
how do you get access to the internet without paying the man?
more than 30 years ago...
Check out eco-capitalism and a lot of other nifty ideas at the Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institute.
30 fucking YEARS people...30 fucking years...
The rights favorite whipping boy, Jimmy Carter, tried to take us there, but the Solar installation he put on the white house in 78 was torn down by President Alzheimers in a moment of not so rare confusion.
...the Bush Crime Family (Gramps' VP) is in any way involved in our government, in any way, shape or form, the oil companies will reign supreme.
and I have not heard a single word about Givt investment in sustainable energy production.
all nukes/ethanol/coal...
Utility tax revenues would drop along with the profits the big boys make and put into the Governments/ politicians pocket
Then you need to watch Obama's opening address to the Governor's Climate Summit here in California:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=...
He SPECIFICALLY mentions wind and solar.
I see these discussions about electric cars and solar PV solar panels all the time and as an Engineer they bother the ever-living crap out of me. Solar hot water are cost and energy effective because many of the same components current in your house can be reused for solar water heating, and the money and energy associated with the additional components is recouped by reducing the natural gas used to heat the water (~15% of your energy usage in the home goes to the hot water tank).
The problem with PV cells is they take ~2 years to recoup the ENERGY used to manufacture the cell---this time can go up a little or down a little depending on where the PV cell is installed and how the manufacturer got its energy to begin with; however, ~2 years is a safe average.
The above is for the PV panel ONLY. add in the manufacturing cost for inverters, load balancers, batteries and all the associated components and you're up to ~5 years of solar panel usage BEFORE you've recouped the energy cost to manufacture the cells.
Here's the funny thing about batteries --- they go bad, they are made from caustic materials, they are environmentally unfriendly, they can be dangerous, and they need to be replaced periodically. The replacement cost in ENERGY alone moves the time to recoupe the energy to manufacture the PV solar cell beyond the 10 year point.
So, for the first 10 years of ownership you are essentially paying back the energy needed to MAKE the damn thing. That's not the $$$$ invested into the system, that's just the energy. So, PV cells usually have a 20 year guaranteed life span --- you get 10 years of energy beyond the EROIE if you're lucky. You better hope the balancers don't fail (load balancers can be incorporated into the panels or external to the panels and ensure all the power flows evenly out of the panels) or that the invert(s) stay in good working order because the repair/replace ENERGY cost will move your EROIE out beyond the 10 year point....
Now, the above doesn't even account for the $$$ investment. You have the initial $$$ invested into the system and yes, your electric bill will go down --- you may even make a few coins in the process; however, lets say you have a $10,000 system(reasonable system cast) and your YEARLY electric bill is $1000 then you are looking at a 10 year ROI; however, that is a in terms of money only. If you factor in the 10(or more) EROIE then your ROI ends up being WELL beyond the 20 guaranteed life of the panel.
PV solar cells are in the 25% efficiency range and will not be a viable alternative due to the cost and energy associated with the systems until the efficiencies are drastically improved. Larger municiple systems become more viable due to scaling. We cant have 1000 degree C pipes filled with molten salt sitting on our roofs but large plants in the dessert can. These types of plans ARE more efficient than the PV cells and SAFER for the environment.
Now for electric cars. Where does the energy for the car come from??? What kind of plant produces that energy??? What produces more CO/CO2/Nx/HCF's and Hg; petrol or coal??? What is the efficiency improvement of electric motors over gasoline engines? What are the first and second laws of thermodynamics? How are we going to store the energy needed to propel the vehicle? Where did the elements needed to make the storage devices come from? What are the EROIE for the storage devices???
Electric cars are no more efficient than gasoline and there has not been a single published scientific study that shows a reduction in CO2 or any other pollutant associated with electric vehicles. This is another area where vast improvements ARE needed but for some reason people think we're there already. Somehow GM destroyed the electric car. It wasn't the scientific and economic realities of the electric car the ended the project it was GM trying to protect big oil!!!
I'm going to let ya'll in on a secret --- GM/Ford/Honda/Chrysler/Toyota/etc don't care one lick about big oil. These makers only care about selling cars. If electric sells more and is more cost effective then they will build electric; however, that is not the case. Electric cost much more that gasoline, doesn't show improvements in gas mileage of EFFICIENT(I had a dodge Omni as a young man that got about 35-40 MPG but the love of Hp has driven down the efficiency along with this need for huge vehicles which also jacks up the fuel needs in the US) gasoline vehicles.
I realize I'm push a boulder up a hill on this. Most people DON'T understand the second law of thermodynamics( first law: you can NEVER EVER EVER get more energy out of a system than you put in, second law: Thanks to losses, the first law is well beyond reach because you well NEVER EVER EVER get as much out of a system as you put into it). This is why H2 vehicles are STUPID!!! H2 doesn't exist naturally. We have to put X energy in but we will only get X-losses out. We spend more to produce H2 than we get back from it.
I'm done ranting.
like hawks, don't they?
I post here somewhat regularly. I'm just educated enough to KNOW that somethings are worse than others. I'm sorry for having a BSME and a MSEE under my belt and understanding the scientific realities. Oh, I'm also pretty liberal --- if you look through my posting history. This is not my first post; however, you---I dare say---have never actually looked into the realities of energy production and usage.
Your condescension, I KNOW exactly where your coming from
Oh, I know you don't "need it". It's a gift. You're welcome ;) Just like I didn't NEED to be grouped in with "they".
Et tu Brute(You too are Brutus).
T Bone Pickens thinking: You get the T-Bones, we get the pickins...right?
It's not T-Boone pickens thinking. It's scientific thinking. Don't be afraid of science. It helps people. Evolution is real. Oh, wait I'm arguing with a different science hater.
One thing I'd like to point out is I've presented a throughout argument. I've presented the pro's and con's as I see them and tried to argue my case on this point.
Your response --- a one line glib retort. If you want to prove me wrong then please feel free to do so. I'm more than willing to admit an error and change my thought processes; however, one-line glib zingers will never change my mind and will give me more reason to maintain my view point and more reason to present it in a public environment and give me a more powerful voice than you with you one-line zinger response.
The reduction in dependence on foreign energy is worth it.
The main problem with energy costs for production of the solar cells is process and demand.
As demand increases, process will streamline, cost in terms of energy as well as dollars will drop.
As for battery technology, yes...we are currently stuck with mid 20th century energy storage technology. But...many advances in materials engineering are in the pipeline. This too, shall improve. Especially if home installations take off. The market will follow.
the date on which they get paid off, innit?
Wtf, cully. Let's don't do anything, cuz it's so expensive???
If national security actually does depend on energy self-suficiency, you'd thing there'd be no price to steep...
I don't give two fat shits about your pissant msaters degrees. Hunter and Amory both have PhDs, iirc...
They've dispatched your objections 30 years ago...
now you can go back to working for Duke electric or such...
Again, another detractor to my argument not presenting a real retort other than "I don't want to hear what you have to say, oh and hers your personal attack!"
In response: Research away. Please find the right silicone to get us above 25% efficiency(the Ultra high efficiency panels used by municipalities cost a metric butt tonne and are cost prohibitive for home use and still only get into the 30% efficiency range) but don't apply the logical fallacies to try and justify yourself to me. ad Hominem attacks will get you nowhere. Appeals to consequence and Bandwagon arguments don't add real credibility to your stance.
So what's the recoup time on a nucular power plant? Hell, we're STILL payinhg those damn things off.
I find it amusing that ROI is used to poohpooh self-generated power. What's the ROI on your car? What's the ROI on your refrigerator? Sometimes people should do things because it's the right thing to do, not because it'll make them money.
Energy independence is directly tied to national security. Moving to distributed generation (power produced and used locally) is essential, not only does it elimate large, sitting duck "targets" it also spreads the net on just what is powering this country. Instead of being held hostage by the whims of OPEC, if they try anything it won't impact as much because fewer kilowatts are generated from oil.
Looking at an ad in my trusty issue of Home Power magazine I see that 200 watt panels are going for about $900 we could have bought 380,000,000 panels with half of the money used on the Wall Street "rescue" scam. Operating at about 70% efficiency I make that about 5,320 megawatts. The other half of the money could have been used to install them creating, as others have noted, thousands of excellent jobs.
I'm glad we didn't do that though. Much better that fat cats stay rich.
The EROIE for nuclear is +; however, the ROI is -. I vote for the - ROI because the EROIE is + at least when compared to coal; additionally, the CO2/CO/hydrocarbon/Nx production of nuclear is essentially zero for the life of the plant(initial energy and pollution investments are offset during the life of the plant).
Now for the 200w panel --- how much energy do you use? How are you going to store that energy? How many panels would YOU need?
Municipal solar can become cost and energy effective; however, individual production still butts up against the second law and economic realities.
So we can bury the nuclear waste in your backyard? Great! We'll send some trucks right over.
I didn't think it needed to be said but I'll say it here for you, I wasn't implying that one 200 watt panel would be all a home would get.
My point about distributed generation is that you eliminate the need for energy storage. When the sun goes down there are a myriad of other energy sources that are still up. Let's face it, most activity takes place in the daylight hours - ever hear of "peak" rates? There's more than enough *existing* generation capacity to handle evenings. Same model goes for wind.
Btw, my power bill last month was $15 and I am totally on a utility with no green supplements. How about you?
Your bill was $15 for the electricity? How did you pull that off? Are you using PV cells? How much did they cost? Are you storing the energy in batteries? How much did they cost? Are you running a dual voltage house? How much did that cost? Have you had any maint fees or costs? How long have you had your system? How long before you have recouped the ENERGY needed to manufacture your system?
When I say cost I mean in terms of $$$ and energy BTW.
I'm totally on the grid. I use power strips to kill phantom loads (which add a staggering and surprising amount to your electric bill) and, happily, I like low levels of light so after I replaced all my main bulbs with compact flourescents I don't end up using very much power. Oh, I'm mostly offa the teevee except for Simpsons/Family guy shows so that's not sucking power 12 hours a day.
To be fair, I was even surprised by that bill but it was also a warm month so the blower on the propane heater and the heat lamps in the bathrooms were not going as much. Still, my point is that just conscious use of power can greatly reduce the need for vast oceans of it.
Yes you can bury the nuclear waste in my backyard. I would be more then happy to store me and my family's nuclear waste. Don't bother with the truck though, you will only need a shoe box. The amount generated would literally be that small. The added bonus is that I can later re sell that "waste" back to the power company to use in Gen.IV reactors.
Nuclear creates zero CO2, so the question is how much will YOUR bill be with a much needed carbon tax?
Just so people don't think he's exaggerating:
The average person in the US uses about 10,000 watts per year of energy, equal to about 60 barrels of oil.
The equivalent amount of uranium used, and we'll assume it's run through the system once and not reprocessed so the amount of "waste" is roughly the same mass as uranium, is 0.0045 kilograms. So, assuming two people live in the same house for 50 years powered off a reactor-based grid, their share of the waste is 225 grams. For 50 years. Half-century. If that waste is reprocessed so it essentially gets used the equivalent of twice, 113 grams.
Assuming an average density of uranium, that works out to...12 cubic centimeters.
Are you going to accept the chemicals and waste product needed to produce the plastic silicon and circuitry for your solar cells?
How come you guys let big energy come in and hijack the thread like this?
All the money they spend trying to keep people from talking about alternative energy is a disgrace
And represent hurdles that MUST be overcome. (Will be, if allowed to)
I see no problem with these comments.
But they are always negative points, that's what ticks me off.
If allowed to is right.
has a black, 55-gal barrel on the roof.
it's there to heat water for domestic use.
How much does it cost to heat your 50-gal water heater to 120 degrees?
it's free if you do it with solar.
that's the fuukin point, friends...
Exactly, solar water heaters ARE cost and energy effective. You get back in spades what you put in. PV cells are not. Pushing PV cells as a viable alternative at this point is silly. We 'should' all have solar water heaters. I've had solar water for years and have not found a single problem with it.
it's the storage technology that really hurts home solar.
Mid 20th century lead/acid storage is ecologically unfriendly and relatively high maintenance.
But...where would home PV technology be if incentives had helped to create a more consumer friendly market?
We can only speculate, because, since Reagan's day, PV/Solar cells have NOT been given priority of any kind.
In fact, Reagan UNINSTALLED PV Solar from the White House, treating it as some kind of joke. In retrospect, that thinking was not good for us.
to realise he has loads of roof acreage around the area just perfect to catch a few rays, and make him a bit of money -- in the long run. His son is an environmental biologist and he's pretty excited about doing something along those lines.
When I built my house, I intergrated photovotalic panels into the roof. The only time I have an electric bil for my 2700 sq. ft. home is when I run my air conditioner. The tax breaks I got from the state paid for the installation labor, so my only outlay was for the hardware itself. I use PV for power, passive solar and solar thermal for heating - a 275 gal. tank of oil will last me the entire New England winter.
And if the free-market is supposed to be so wise in determining what should be done, why haven't we built any nuclear plants since 1977?
Face it, solar, geothermal, wind and wave energy are the ways of the future. If we don't invest now, we're giving up the business of tomorrow. It'd be as if we decided that after developing the trasnistor that we weren't going to invest in any of this computer technology stuff.
Where my little house is( Tip of Baja,East Cape region) everybody has solar. There are no power lines or running water(yet).
Most people have spent anywhere from 10k on up. Homes vary in size, so , so does the amount of solar equipment.
The thing is maintenance. You have to keep the panels clean,and you have to stir the batteries.
There is this one large home that didn't maintain their batteries.
One bad cell ruined 85 batteries. 100 bucks a battery. Now, they had an older system. The newer inverters have a way to stir the batteries. But they are expensive.
If you are using an electric refrigerator, you sometimes have to charge the batteries with a generator. A propane refer is a better way to go. But you're limited in cubic feet usage. 11 cf I believe.
After that, the propane method isn't as efficient.
If you have little need/usage of electricity, a small set up will work fine. But you do need to be there to maintain it, otherwise you'll be replacing batteries a lot. And that gets pricey. A small wind generator serves a useful purpose to keep the batteries up when not in usage. But they still need to be stirred.
Newer batteries are coming out that are more of a gel base as opposed to acid. They seem to work better.
But the bottom line is maintenance. You have to be there to do it.
Now, if you live in the house, and are always there. There should be no problem. But make no mistake, it is work on a regular basis.
As for the cisterns or Tombroro on top of homes in Mexico. Yes, they are black and do heat water somewhat. But not that much.
It's primarily for gravity feed. Because in Mexico, as with electricity, it's prone to go out every now and then.
But still, it's nice to live without telephone poles and power lines.
There is a downside to solar panels. In the manufacturing process, they use some nasty chemicals. And the by product or waste from manufacturing is very nasty.Toxic in fact.
But that can be dealt with with the proper regulations to deal with the nasty by product. And some of it does go into the atmosphere.
I think all that is needed is the will to make it all work.
All that is needed is a little ingenuity.
Yes, I know this guy spent a small fortune on his demonstration-model of a zero-carbon-emissions solar-hydrogen home, but keep in mind, the costs would be significantly less if widely implemented.
Home is where the hydrogen and solar power is. (Video - about 10 minutes.)
Thanks for all the information. But it is all so confusing. Am old and I don't have that kind of money to invest in solor power. It sounds great.
I've been trying to get him to put solar panels on our house for 11 years! ... maybe seeing a $0.00 power bill will do it .. if we survive the recession
Every bit of energy on this planet ultimately came/comes from the sun. Why not tap in directly? That's "new school". Oil is stored potential energy, that will run out. "New energy" comes down every day, we just have to catch it.
My favorite part is how she's still getting electric bills. Because it's illegal for her to not be connected to the grid, even though she doesn't need to be. Because she would get charged money for not being connected to it.
My husband and I once tried to disconnect from our monopoly of a water company and they said we would be charged every month because we live on land where some of their pipes are (because the pipes run water to the house, duh). The price to completely disconnect from them, monthly, was more than a tri-monthly water bill.
That's my favorite part. You're not actually ALLOWED to fully disconnect. We couldn't have anyone going and being independent...
Zero dollar electric bill? That's about 12 dollars less then my current electric bills. How many tens of thousands of dollars of solar panels will I need to install to get it down to zero?
Want to know one of the first thoughts that crosses my mind whenever this sort of thing starts up and people rave about electric cars? That they (a) live in a city or (b) live in the southwest US.
See, those of us who live in parts of the world that have winter...no, not the slightly damp kind you pansies from New York City and southward get, but real winter, recognize several issues that y'all getting all hyped up about this sort of thing tend to overlook.
1. Ever try keeping a car battery charged at -20C and lower?
2. Ever try driving a car at -20C with no heat?
Heating a car with an internal combustion engine is free: it uses waste heat from the engine, with only a small electric draw forthe fans. Heating an electric car, totally different kettle of fish because you need to power the fans and the heating element, which cuts into the amount of energy available to go somewhere.
Why are people living in NYC pansies?
If electirc isn't good for you, then it's OK to use what is. People are just saying there are alternatives to getting around, beyond Hummers. Many people could get by with a glorified golf cart.
Login or Register to post comments.