Just looking to open a can of worms.

How many electricians see Solar (PV) as a viable energy alternative?

Not in the terms of residential use, but in total consumption Residential, Industrial and Commercial.

For porposes of debate here are some numbers to play with:

This is the largest and most powerful solar facility planned to date, which will be roughly the size of San Francisco. About 5000 acres and 500MW.... http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=35263

Heres the total US (Production not consumption) in MWh http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1b.html

FYI I'm not getting into the nay saying of alternative energy - just getting the average "Electricians perspective".

Would you put one on your home?

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 02-24-2007).]

I was involved with an engineer on one of these projects. The results, even with properly functioning gear (another story itself), were nowhere near the expectations.

Another project had solar heating for the water. This project was also beset with materials and control problems.

In both cased, the customers were professionals who had plenty of prior experience with "alternative energy." Suffice it to say that none of the previous projects ... some highly touted as 'successes' ... lived up to their promises either.

I have been dabbling with solar energy since the Carter administration. There were a couple of IBM engineers who went crazy with it. One had an active solar heated house.
It was a maintenance nightmare and he ripped it all out to sell the house. I had a solar heated spa that my ex made me rip out on my way out of town.

Skip ahead

I now have a solar heated pool now. That works and actually does make sense. I looked into solar power for the pool pump I hit the wall. If nothing ever broke, my payback would be 20 years or so. That is about as simple a PV setup you can think of, no utility connection, no transfer equipment and minimal storage. When the collectors provide enough power you run the pump. It will be over $10,000. (1.5 KW system)
One of the problems with that "1.5kw" is that is on a cloudless day at noon on the summer solstice (or which day you have it perfectly aimed for). Any other time it will be putting out less.

The basic rule in solar, or most alternate energy, is, the simpler the better. Solar pool heaters are decidedly low tech, they use the existing plumbing and pump and they will buy you some extra swimming days, plenty if you cover the pool. As soon as you start getting much more complicated the payback periods and the PIA value starts increasing exponentially. If this is just a hobby, try to buy other people's heartaches, cheap and play but do not expect to really save any money.
I got my pool collectors from one of those "roof leak" people.

I have a passive/active solar house. It works great. I live in Maine the temp is about 15 right now so as you can imagine heating is a concern. I installed the SOlar hot water system, not sure what percentage of hot water it generates but the other day it was 5 degress out and the collector temp was 150 degrees. Its been working flawlessly for 15 years with 1 maintenance issue. The differential controller failed within a few months of startup. Since then absolutely nothing has broken.
As far as the passive part of my house goes, its nice but I wouldn't do it again. I'd still orient the house toward the south but I'd limit the windows and spend my money on insulation.

I can put $15-20K in reasonable investments and generate enough income to pay my electric bill. My peak needs are met and someone else does the upkeep.

Or I can pay $15-20K for a solar system, often have too little power, and have repair bills.

I think the first option is best.

(Yes I Know you weren't talking about residential) I ride by houses around here that have their roofs almost completely covered in Solar Panels. When I ask the people, "What does that power?" They reply, "The lights and maybe a TV or two."

I'll stick with the grid.

For nationwide solar power, the U.S isn't exactly the sunniest country.
If we could find one spot that's always sunny (Mojave Desert?) and send the generated power across the country (did I hear someone say 765KV trans. lines?) I'll say it might work.

Ian A.

PV is a niche play, only: It's for demand that is just too far away from the grid.

Solar hot water is economic already in the sunbelt. But that's a plumber's game.

PV orbiting the earth would make more sense. No weather and orbits can be chosen to provide almost continuous sun.

But we do not have the ability to mass transport or mass manufacture in space... YET.

Zero gravity + vacuum favors robotic mass production of semi-conductors.

All of this is pie in the sky... generations away. Yet, like the trans-continental railroad -- forseen in 1806 -- it's time will come: to our great-great-grandchildren.

BTW, the Amazon tributaries in Peru have enough hydro-potential to power the entire planet -- forever -- well, as long as the Sun shines and Earth maintains it's orbit. However such an easy conventional project gets zero consideration.

Once again - I'm not looking at an individuals single residential bill that might take 10-20 years to see a return on investment etc.

I'm looking at the broader scope of TOTAL consumption, the 3,717,353MWh's of power vs. the 500MW peak that would be available for roughly 6 hours a day. The Commercial and Industrial markets are the other two thirds of the market, and I don't think I'll ever see Solar making it past the cost/benefit test for them.

Even with the Residential market it only passes the cost/benefit test when the "Feel Good" policy factor is applied. As as mentioned the onus of adding a PV system is on the property owner, something that is out of reach for a majority of people without subsidies. And even then the NIMBY's of the world take offense if they can see them...

So far it seems the answer to "would you put one one your home" seems to be in the 50/50 60/40 range from this and another post on another forum.

But what do you think about the broader scope of the total consumption and production for solar?

It doesn't seem to me that even the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will make a dent. Especially when we have a hard time forcing fluorescent lighting down peoples throats when required.

Tesla that is my kind of thinking.... And I'm thinking you're the type of person who has evaluated the effiecianties of the rotating magnetic field vs the output of PV cells....

Germany has a big government PV system but it operates at about a 50% taxpayer subsidy over what the customers pay for the power.
Scientific American had an article that set the actual production cost at a tad over .50 Euro per KWH. The customer pays less than half that, still expensive by US standards.

In Germany you usually pay at the moment between .20 to .30 UsCents per kWh. Solar and wind power projects are not financed by taxes, but there is a law, that obliges the PoCos to buy solar power or wind power at defined rates in order to promote the development of those new power sources.
This program is of course limited with regard to time and also in some way to the extent of green energy that has to be bought.

So it is in the end financed by the consumers.

In Germany you can buy, based on European laws, your energy from one of more than a hundred providers. To make this possible all PoCos were split up into a grid part, supplying cable, counter and any other hardware on one hand and energy sellers on the other. Only the grid part price is regulated as being a monopoly by nature.

So in case you feel green and got enough money you will look for a very green provider (like "Greenpeace energy") which then will supply only green energy (which is checked very exactly), or you just buy the cheapest, as you like.

By these two measures we got a relatively high density of wind power in a country with moderate wind and a small but nevertheless interesting photovoltaic power production without very much sunshine. You can't get rich with that stuff, but with some idealism you will be able to cover your costs.

[This message has been edited by Wolfgang (edited 02-25-2007).]

Solar for generating power, forget it, to expensive and maintenace prone.

It is ok for pre heating water or heating swimming pools to reduce overall powerusage, instead of heating up cold water at 6°C.

Here's another fun element of conversation....

The Solar Facility I mentioned earlier in the thread is powered by Stirling Engines.... http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

Quote:
'the Stirling project would provide enough clean power to serve 278,000 homes for an entire year," said SCE Chairman John Bryson.


Yet take up a simular amount of real estate.

This is how one works..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

They need to be articulated toward the sun. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/video/...se_footage.wmv

They have even more maintenance problems than PV cells Fixed in place.

More Stirling Engine Gen sets... http://www.stmpower.com/Markets/STM%...2011-15-04.pdf

Maybe this can be incorporated into the French "Air Car"? http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html Who also may be looking into the Air Gen set...

It uses a far greater amount of energy to create silicon solar cells than they will return in their limited lifespan as electrical output. The end user may see a benefit of purchasing and installing solar pv in his residence, but as far as " helping to save planet Earth" goes its another looser method. Having said that , I as an electrical contractor see solar pv system installations as a gold mine, and would never let the customer know he is helping to fuel the energy crisis, since he is helping to fund my Mercedes crisis.

Great topic, Mark. I'm all for alternative sources of energy as long they work and are effecient to the end user. But what I don't understand is how the energy gets from the generating plant to the customers home/ commercial business.

You are joking right - WIRE - we are in the biz of selling the stuff...

What I think your trying to say is 'How is the energy produced?' The Stirling engine turns a traditional revoling magnetic field generator. Collectively they operate in parralel colectively, as many other generating systems do. (Not so difficult a task - but would incure losses if out of sync.) However I am not sure at what voltage the are generating at... Med Voltage (2000V)tops... As I do not see the isolation nessesary for anything past that.

Actually, I was being serious. It was unclear to me wether the conversion of energy was done at the plant or at the place its going to be used. Thats why I quoted what I did in the last post. Where is this canister the size of an oil barrel located? And how big is this Sterling Dish?

Oh... Apparently it, (the Stirling Engine and its oil drum sized canister) and the 25kW?* generator it runs are located at the focal point of the dish structure which is about 40' in diameter. So I assume them to be big enough to cradle a semi trailer in?

*Another part of the site said 1 MW takes 40 of these.... So for 500 MW they need 20,000 of them... But if they can find birdless skys far from Martha's Vineyard they could put up 70-100 of these. http://www.ge.com/stories/en/20423.html?category=Product_Business



[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 02-26-2007).]

For a long tale about the reasons for going with solar (and wind) power on a very small scale, see here:
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000757.html

The only reason for going the PV route was because the PoCo was quoting almost $40,000 to provide grid power. If utility power had been available at reasonable cost then PV wouldn't have even been considered.

But to address the question of total solar for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, I don't see it as being viable -- And certainly not in the English climate!



[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 02-26-2007).]

Paul, I am in Florida and I still can't make the numbers work. The only reason I considered it was for "after the storm" and my collectors would probably be solid waste in the next county anyway.

I was greatly disappointed when I looked into this, too- after we lost power for 8 days after Hurricane Isabel, I wanted to add solar power so I could power my fridge and some lights/TVs during another outage, and sell back energy when the grid was working. But it's just SO expensive!

I'd posted these calculations before, but I think it's pertinant. I apoligize for all the [super]s- I wrote this up for another forum that had superscripts that the UBB on this board doesn't support:

* Average Solar Flux for North America: 150 W/m[super]2[/super] -This is representative of the US Northeast and Europe, and accounts for weather.
* Best Average Solar Flux in the US southwest is 240 W/m[super]2[/super]
* Northern US December average 71 W/m[super]2[/super]
* Winter levels will be appx 80% of this value
* US Annual Energy Consumption in 2003: 6.22 ExaWatt-hours (equivilent to 325 billion tons of oil)
* Typical electrically heated household energy use during coldest week of winter: 24,000W
* Typical instantaneous power requirement for a refrigerator: 1200W
* Combined contribution of solar, geothermal and wind in 2003: less than 2%
* Solar Panel Efficiency: 8.25% (commercially mass produced a-Si, the only feasible material at the scale we're talking! See Unisolar whitepaper #1 below.)
* Thermal de-rating of solar panels for US winter weather: 15% for a-Si, 35% for crystalline silicon.
* Typical loss due to dirt, dust, etc: 3%+
* Inverter efficiency: 94%
* Wiring efficiency: 97%
* Transformer efficiency: 95%
* Battery efficiency: 80%

* Energy required to manufacture a-Si panels:120 kWh/m[super]2[/super] (432 MJ/m[super]2[/super]) as a generously conservative estimate. I don't know if this counts mining, refining, transportation, installation, cabling, power conversion, substations, transmission, etc, etc and I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
* Energy required to mount an a-Si panel: appx 120 kWh/m[super]2[/super] (432 MJ/m[super]2[/super])

* Solar energy absorbed annually per m[super]2[/super] in US Southwest desert:
365 days * 24 hours * 240W/m[super]2[/super] = 2,100 kWh

* Solar energy absorbed annually per m[super]2[/super] in US Northeast:
365 days * 24 hours * 150W/m[super]2[/super] = 1,314 kWh

* Losses in conversion, wiring, etc:
.97 * .94 * .97 * .95 * .80 = 32% loss, 67% efficiency

* Break-even point for energy for a-Si Solar Panels and installation in US Southwest desert:
240kWh/m2 / (240W/m2 * 8.25% * 67% * 24 * 365) = 2.1 years

* Break-even point for energy for a-Si Solar Panels and installation in US Northeast:
240kWh /m2 / (150W/m2 * 8.25% * 67% * 24 * 365) = 3.2 years

For this that missed the significance of this, it means spending 2-3x our entire annual energy consumption on solar panel production alone.

If the south-facing roof of a 200m[super]2[/super] (~2000ft[super]2[/super]) typical house in the Arizona desert was covered in a-Si solar panels:
240W/m[super]2[/super] * 100 m[super]2[/super] * 8.25% * 67% = 1300W (about enough to run a refrigerator)

If the south-facing roof of a 200m[super]2[/super] (~2000ft[super]2[/super]) typical house in the US was covered in a-Si solar panels:
150W/m[super]2[/super] * 100 m[super]2[/super] * 8.25% * 67% = 829W (about enough to run a typical PC desktop with 17" CRT monitor). It would take 42 houses like this to provide the energy one house requires for electric heating.

If the south-facing roof of a 200m[super]2[/super] (~2000ft[super]2[/super]) typical house in the US Northeast in winter was covered in a-Si solar panels (assuming no snow):
71W/m[super]2[/super] * 100 m[super]2[/super] * 8.25% * 67% * .85 = 321W (4 houses combined could run a Mr. Coffee). It would take 75 houses like this to provide the energy one house requires for electric heating.

Cost of 8% efficient a-Si solar panel: appx $1000/m[super]2[/super]
Cost of installation: appx $100/m[super]2[/super]
Cost of 10kW inverter: $12000 (For surge. An electric range draws 10kW.)
Cost of storage batteries: $200/kWh
Cost of cabling: appx 1x material cost
Cost of electrical installation: appx 2x electrical material cost

100m[super]2[/super] of solar panels: $100,000
Cost of panel installion: $10,000
Batteries required to store 2 day’s worth of energy at 1300W average: $13,000
Cost of inverter: $12000
Cost of electrical installation: $20,000
Total cost of 1300W Arizona or 564W northeast partially-solar-powered house calculated for above: $155,000.

Area of solar panels in the southwest US desert required to supply US with total electricity demands:
6.22Ewh / (1300W * 24 * 365) = 54,000 km[super]2[/super]

Number house-sized solar panels spread evenly throughout the US required to supply US with total electricity demands:
6.22Ewh / (829W * 24 * 365) = 856 million house-sized panels (compared to 120 million households in the US, which includes aparments and townhouses)- works out to about a quarter acre of solar panels per every family in the US. BUT, that's lopsided as most of that comes from the summer. If we go by straight winter values, it works out to closer to 17 acres of solar panels per family.

US GDP: $ 11.75 trillion
856 million house-sized panels: $158 trillion


Sources: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/solartechnote.html http://www.uni-solar.com/uploadedFiles/0.4.2_white_paper_2.pdf http://www.uni-solar.com/uploadedFiles/0.4.2_white_paper_1.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power


Since we're using very large numbers here:
1,000 Thousand Kilo k
1,000,000 Million Mega M
1,000,000,000 Billion Giga G
1,000,000,000,000 Trillion Tera T
1,000,000,000,000,000 Quadrillion Peta P
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Quinillion Exa E

* It would literally take a solar panel larger than Wales to supply UK with their annual electrical consuption. And probably require most of Scotland to be turned into hydoelectric resevoirs to feed the grid at night and on rainy/cloudy days.



[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 02-26-2007).]

I figured that the income from $15-20K would pay my electric bill forever.

It is certainly a better investment to put the money in a business investment rather than into solar panels.

Steve was that a solar powered calculator? It must be on fire!

I am truely impressed....

I didn't realize solar energy isn't as advanced as it seems. The Home Depot and British Petroleum make it seem like the we're nuts for not using it when it's clearly available. I don't want to trigger a political debate (ECN policy violation), but a little energy conservation can't be all bad.

Dare I say it, the reason I posted this was for a 'green' apprentice who used to work for a Solar company who as absorbed too much of the Sales Literature whom I have gotten into heated debates about solar with. (I wish he would pop in on the topic.) When I told him that I really didn't believe in solar as being viable or effective (key words) in the grand scale.... he scoffed. I will admit I did use hash words for what I think of it. But said he would be surprised how many Electricians don't buy into solar at this stage of its development.

Note that there are many way to look at the varied calculation. (Steves' is hash, and right along my thinking) But for many, the calculation is balanced with a very heavy dose of currency allotment for how one might feel about how the impact the environment. But this is not the cleanest method of producing electricity by any means - something I feel that people often turn a blind eye to - Because they think the trade off is worth it, but if you bounce the numbers (the electrical ones) around, solar is very ineffeciant vs. cost, value of return in production i.e. kW output, and of course the pollutants it took to make it. Because it (the technology) is in it's infancy... Moving ahead full scale with it at this stage is actually more wastefull.
IMO

Personally I would like to see better made wind-generators that work.... You get way more bang for the buck with them, and the have much higher output.

As a guy named "SolarPowered", I guess I just have to weigh in on this subject.

First off, the name is in reference to a peculiar characteristic of my body. My body is solar powered--when the sun is shining, I'm bright and happy and energetic; when the sun goes away, I go into hibernation. I don't have solar power running my home, nor do I design solar power systems for people.

That said, I do have a pretty keen interest in the subject, and have been following it for a long time.

My take on solar power is right in line with what mostly everyone else here has been saying--at the current level of technology, solar power isn't viable as a mass replacement for other power sources. The economics just aren't there. To make it almost look economically viable requires large subsidies from the state in form of rebates for much of the cost of installing the system, and from the power companies in the form of "net metering", which is really a big loss for the power company.

One major issue that hasn't come up yet is the issue of energy storage--these solar power systems don't produce anything when the sun's not shining. There's really no cost-effective technology available at this time to store energy during the day for use at night. Most systems use lead-acid batteries. Like all batteries, they wear out eventually. When you amortize the cost of the batteries over their lifetime, it ends up that you're paying $.25-$.50 per kWH just to store the energy, not counting the cost of the rest of the system.

From what I can see, if we as a society decide that we must curtail the burning of fossil fuels, the only viable techology at this time that could replace fossil fuel on a large scale is nuclear power.

[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 02-27-2007).]

If y'all think solar is bad... solar panels look like nuclear reactors compared to the energy efficiency of ethanol! I still can't fathom why in the hell we're embracing ethanol like it's some miracle replacement for oil when it actually takes more energy to grow and process corn and soy into fuel then we get from burning ethanol. (OK, there's still debate on this- but the debate isn't whether it's a viable energy source, it's whether there's a net energy loss or if it's just ridiculously inefficient)

Solar has its niches; it's both economically and energy efficient when used in remote applications where wiring is impractical. Remote weather stations, for instance. I ran those calcs assuming solar heat and typical US power loads- if a home were to "cheat" and use gas heat & cooking and have no A/C and a minimum of other loads and use the electric grid in lieu of a battery storage system, it begins to look a little better. And honestly, every little bit helps- if we can put 10 square meters of solar panels on each new home in arizona, it will reduce our overall need for coal by that much.

[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 02-27-2007).]

One problem I see with "solar power" discussions is what I tend to think of as the "Russian syndrome." That is, the issue is discussed in terms of central planning, and massive arrays. This is, I believe, an incorrect application of solar.

Now, I have installed a dozen or so 'solar power' systems that were neither large, nor tied into the grid. These systems have worked well.
The application? Powering bus shelter lights and traffic signs. In these applications, they work well. The role of solar may be to maintain, rather than power. I see them powering small, stand-alone loads, rather than as part of a power distribution system.

The real weakness of solar is still the battery. Getting 1000 deep cycles out of a battery is about all you can count on. That is why the net metering is really the only practical way to go. On a small scale that works fine but the electrical infrastructure still needs to be able to handle a cloudy day so the real saving to the utility is not as great as we could expect. I see a similar problem with the electric car. A few people having an electric car is not a problem but if we had 50 million people who net meter their solar arrays and then come home and plug in their car right after dark we will need a whole lot more generating capacity, not less. People seem to forget all of that "car" energy has to come from somewhere.

On ethenol... It has artificialy driven up and created corn shortages in the markets... As a result there is a slight shortage of tortillas due to corn being diverted to fuel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601896_pf.html

Apparently all of the subsidized corn farmers of our country were not enough to supply enough as fuel... So sooner or later we will be paying top dollar for both gas, and tomales, or corn bread if you preffer...

Why is it that people here can't think outside the square?.
The PoCo here have used 110VDC supplied by 2 banks of cells in parallel for years and that supplies all of our IT and WLAN gear, never had a problem with it either, although fed by PV panels.
Of course there will be those that will crop up and say "yet!".
Good battery maintenance will ensure good life in the cells, and you will have a better idea of when the cells will likely fail.
As I said over on the thread that Paul posted I have a local mate that has a house that is run on PV panels, he lives by himself though and has a power bill of $10 amonth, but he does have a well insulated house, most peoples money goes out through the windows and walls, roof and floor.
Also you don't need real sunlight to run a PV panel.
2 3000W inverters run his place, biggest load would be the stove on Grill, he uses that infrequently though.
One other thing about inverters, if you are going to run a Microwave oven on one, get a pure sine-wave unit, not one of them cheap square-wave jobs, nothing but junk.


{Message edited for a typo}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 02-28-2007).]

Solar pv may be on the threshold of being able to compete with carbon fuels. A report in last Monday's respected UK Daily Telegraph, [ Money section, google UK Daily Telegraph; search; solar ] was that CIGS cells [ CuInGaSe ], printed on foil, are set to come down below US $1 / Watt by 2009, putting them level par with conventional generation capital costs. Anil Sethi, CEO of Swiss corp 'Flisom' says he "don't need subsidies" he "just wants governments to get outa the way!" I second that! There may well be not enough roof area to support cells for 100% solar, as Steve says, but any mass development will hurt Pocos, shaving margins in the middle of the day, just when they earn most money and pv effectiveness is highest, which I surmise will knock on the head them paying for reverse metering your excess!

The price of corn, or indeed any crop producing oil, has shot up because of alternate use of agricultural products for fuels. Whole Grain burners, [ corn, wheat etc.] are now freely available for heating. Converting vegetable oil to biodiesel is a thiving UK/US/OZ/EU backyard industry - basically all you need is a set of scales, a jug, methanol, 'Drano' [hydoxide] and some 5 gallon HDPE drums. Using free waste oil [WVO] from burger joints is very attractive too, if a bit extra work filtering the crud. [Google WVO.]
I'm just starting to build a waste-oil central heating burner, having returned from the UK with all the necessary kit - hopefully more shortly; but a taster is I'm going to filter using a centrifuge, with electric oil pre-heat, a [commercial not home-made] electrically operated nozzle heater and electrical fire safety equipment, having taken on Iwire's advise, thanks Bob- two heads are better than one - even if they are sheeps' heads, as my old Pa used to say!

Alan

I have been tempted to reply several times to this thread. I have found solar power very useful in limited applications, all off grid.

The solution I like the most is solar water pumping, no batteries as the storage tank with gravity feed, stores the energy. I do not care for them at all if going with a pressure tank (with batteries).

I am ok with off grid housing, but the stuff I've done here is for temporary housing (the occupants, not the structures). As such, I can cheat on the sizing. It still gets very costly.

I am a fan of having a solar panel on the top of a RV. But we RV owners must have money to burn, and we already have the batteries. I do not care for the idea of solar powered RV connections, but in working through that, I have come up with compromises where we provide a solar powered charge your battery (only for more permenant guests like a site host).

Having provided generator power for off grid residences, I like the hybrid (using both generator and solar) though there are many that I have designed generator only because of initial cost.

My first and foremost choice is just to connect to the grid. When solar does become reasonable, I would like to adopt it and convert. My money is safe for a few years at least.

It is nice to have the choice and even better to have electricity. I have lived where running water meant sending the house boy out to the community well with a bucket and electricity was available 1-2 hours per week. I am thankful to live now where when you talk about things like this and people are in awe and miss the point saying "You had a maid and a house boy?" I would much rather have the running water, electrical service, gas service, garbage service, paved roads, and the vermin free house.

You had a maid and a house boy? I wouldn't mind that country... Maybe hire some more help for rats and such... So what I don't have a big screen TV! I don't have one now. And no offense anyone, but the lack of a computer wouldn't bother me either Truthfully wouldn't miss the toilet either....

With ya'lls permission, may I weigh in here?

Isn't there an underlying issue here?

What was the electrical load of the last house you residential guys put together?

I'm exagerating of course, but a 40 gigglestinker sq ft summer house with the hot tub swimming pool whirlpool tub in the master bath home theater landscape lighting electric dog washer three dishwashers multiple big screen tv's etc etc etc etc.

The ones that make PV work are the ones willing to forgo some of the bells and whistles that so many of the consumers feel are a "right". Alternative energy is a good thing, but it will only work if somehow all of the users of the electricity are willing to say "This much and no more"

The CA energy crisis of a few years ago could have been a lot less, if everyone would have turned some things off, turned the a/c a little warmer, and thought about what they were doing before they turned something on, but how many people were willing to do that?

There are some comments on the ethanol boondoggle here, the electric car is the same thing. They are remote polluters. I read that it takes more energy to make the electricity to charge the car to drive for 10 miles than it takes to make the half gallon of gas to go the same distance in a "average" car.

I think the whole point of my somewhat rambling post, that until something convinces everyone that they "help the cause" by not using as much as they did, we are stuck with what we have.

BTW I use PV here at the railroad, it powers some of my signals that are out in the middle of nowhere, LED bulbs are a good thing.

TW

The wave of the future in alternative energy seems to be wind generators, not solar panels. I saw a show on ethanol production several years ago. The producer wasn't using corn, he was using waste Halloween candy.

Dave

Tiger, I'm inclined to agree with you.

I have seen several successful, small wind turbines. Some of these ... even most of these ... were rebuilt models from the 1930's. (At that time many farms had them, and the government insisted on their destruction as a condition of bringing out power lines).

Today, many of these turbines have been dug up from the mud around the towers that they were pushed from, have had the major work needed to make them functional, and attached to the various devices that allow them to 'back feed' the grid.

This is NOT to be confused with the pretty white elephants you're always seeing pictures of. Those massive wind turbines are generally non-functional, with frozen bearings or simply free-spinning, without producing a watt of power. The only things they seem to do well is make noise and dice condors.

The role of wind seems also to be on a smaller scale, and has been much more successful than solar attempts.

I have always wondered if you would be able to cobble up a wind turbine out of an old automobile alternator, a couple of deep cycle batteries and an inverter, if it would be possible ( and feasible) to generate enough power to operate choice loads throughout a house ( lighting, and perhaps the fridge and freezer. Nothing big really, just something that could be bolted up atop an unused T.V antenna that it seems many people still have bolted to the sides of their houses, well at least around here they do.. Put the inverter and batteries in the basement and there ya MIGHT have a limited but cheap source of "green" power.
Just a thought....

A.D

Trainwire, the residential market here varies from 100a services with barely anything on them, to 320A services that are maxed out easy. On a few occassions 600A that hit 90% during what I feel is the highest energy consumption times - Chistmas Parties, and hot summer days... That is all single family homes....

While I'll agree that better lighting should be used more, but it is really hard to force that type of lighting down the throats of people who think 'green' until they look green under the lights. Or for that matter don't feel like spending the green stuff on LED's that haven't been able to get that warm incandesant feel to them yet. The sticker shock on 3000k and 5000k white LED's puts people right off of them, fast.
And I have to twist peoples arms to install the legaly required flouresent lighting.

What people do want,so it seems, is 50W MR-16 cans more or less every 4'!

On the island of Hawaii, (Big) there is one geothermal generating plant. They are a small operation, unable to expand nor drill more wells due to the fact that the original peoples of Hawaii feel that that is drilling into sacred ground. There is enough political pressure to prevent any expansion, so the operators of this company have a really difficult time turning a proffit. At least that Island, and probably Maui also could provide 100 per cent of the electrical power requirement for each by using the available heat provided by volcanic activity. But, instead we import fossil fuels to burn and pollute the atmosphere. Somebody give me a bullet to bite on...

Over on the alt.energy.renewable newsgroup they talk about this a lot and the engineer types say car alternators are not particularly efficient but the real sticking point is still the battery. Youi spend a lot of money and seldom get much more than 3 years out of them. It really pushes up your cost per KWH

Rewired,

Try here:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks10/wturb/index.html

or here:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks3/wmotor/index.html


Look around at that site, there's lots more.

I don't dare stay there too long or I'm broke, again.

TW

Rewired,

Use of a high output automobile alternator for wind is feasible (depending on your definition of the word). A problem lies in getting the alternator rotating at high enough RPM's for operation which may require a larger propeller than you may think is necessary and some gearing.

These little alternators do work well for microhydro generating plants, yet with 24/7 operation, 500-750 watt continuous output, and 20 storage batteries (200 amp-hr each, the design was for high loads of short duration) a wasteful user can drain the system quickly (just plug in a fridge and minor lights and watch your power drain, much better to keep the fridge on propane). You also need a good water source typically better if you have a high head of about 200 feet of fall (the smaller the fall the higher the volume needed).

Hey Thank you for the info and the links.
Soon as I have a few minutes I am going to have a look at those sites! Perhaps do a little more research..

A.D