House pulses with solar energy -- And with heating costs exp

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/12803477.htm
House pulses with solar energy
Lake Norman man offers lessons in cutting reliance on fuel
MIKE DRUMMOND
Staff Writer
Jeff Martin bear-hugs a massive, insulated 1,000-gallon water tank in his basement. "This," he proclaims, "is the heart of the house."
It's an apt metaphor. Solar thermal panels on his roof heat water that circulates around the heart-tank, and keeps his family of four in more hot water than they can use. Martin spends no money heating water, shaving 20 percent or more off his annual energy bill.
Built three years ago on Lake Norman, the house is a living experiment of the potential of solar energy and eco-friendly construction techniques. And with heating costs expected to hit record highs this winter, the Martin home also offers a lesson of what's possible today.
Energy-saving features include off-the-shelf glazed windows, compact fluorescent bulbs and the solar thermal water system.
Among the more exotic energy-saving aspects of the Martins' 4,750-square-foot home is a photovoltaic, or PV, system that carpets the south-facing, sun-splashed roof. Unlike the solar thermal system that also shares roof space, the PV system generates electricity. After clearing a tangle of red tape, this summer Martin, 38, began selling surplus electricity back to NC GreenPower, a nonprofit organization that encourages alternative energy use.
His largest energy bill to date: $152.87 this summer. He notes that friends from California visited for eight days and he cranked the air conditioning.
Martin is a business development manager for Microsoft Corp. He's as far from a survivalist or hippie as they come. Nonetheless, he's just old enough to recall when America was held energy-hostage during the 1970s oil embargo. He abhors the notion of dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Recent hurricane-related disruptions in fuel supply bolster his conservationist resolve.
He spent more than $60,000 on the PV portion of his solar arsenal, and likely will never totally recoup the cost of installation. But for him, the panels are aesthetically, spiritually and ecologically pleasing.
"I know of someone not too far from here who spent more than this on slate flooring for the entire house," he says. "Where's the payback on slate?"
For now, PV is the flying car of residential solar systems -- an unrealistic and cost-prohibitive option for most homeowners.
But solar thermal systems for heating water are viable. Throw in state and federal tax incentives, and solar thermal water systems are a "no-brainer," says Shawn Fitzpatrick, an energy specialist with the N.C. Solar Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for solar and other renewable energy programs.
A typical solar thermal water-heating system retrofitted for a single-family home can cost $4,000 to $5,000. An N.C. tax credit can shave up to $1,400. A federal tax credit that kicks in Jan. 1 can knock off $2,000. Total out-of-pocket for the system: between $600 and $1,600.
For a typical homeowner, the system can pay for itself in less than five years, Fitzpatrick says. Without the federal credit, which sunsets in 2008, it could take as long as 10 years.
Chris and Gretchen Witzgall took advantage of the state tax credit when they bought their new home in Wake County last year. They paid $379,000 for the 2,700-square-foot house. About $30,000 of that was for PV and solar thermal systems.
Like the Martins, the Witzgalls sell surplus electricity their home generates back to the grid -- in fact, both homeowners are listed as regulated utilities with the state. But it's the hot water from solar thermal that makes the biggest financial impact, Witzgall says.
"We have unlimited hot water," Witzgall, 38, adds. "That's probably the biggest saver."
He figures his monthly housing costs -- including a low-interest, seven-year balloon mortgage -- is $600 less than it would normally be, when energy savings from solar and other conservation features are factored in.
His highest electrical bill to date was $150 this summer, when he was running the air conditioning to keep the three-bedroom house at a constant 75 degrees.
Betsy Mayers, 60, has that beat. She says her electric bill for her 1,400-square-foot barnlike home near Asheville runs about $25 a month or $300 a year.
She built her house in 1990 -- it's been featured on a public television special -- and includes PV solar electric generation, solar thermal and other so-called passive solar features to keep heat in during winter and out during summer.
Like her solar brethren, she spends $0 heating water.
Moreover, like other conservation-minded homeowners, her desire to find a better way to use energy is as much about sovereignty as it is economics.
She says oil shortages of the 1970s "really affected me."
"I said, `When I get my dream house, I'm going to be as independent as possible.' "
Cool Ways to Warm
Green features of the Martin home � Eaves jut far enough to keep the summer sun out, but allow winter sun to splash indoors after the fall equinox.
� Polyurethane spray-on insulation instead of rolled fiberglass keeps the house so sealed that two air-exchange devices are needed to keep fresh air circulating. "It's one giant Igloo cooler," Martin says. He adds that his contractor told him he had more insulation than the ceiling of a Kmart superstore.
� Water pipes running under both stories can keep floors warm. Warmth
Pipes embedded in concrete throughout home keep floors -- and feet -- warm. Energy
The Martins sell back any surplus electricity the solar panels generate.
Power
Photovoltaic solar panels convert sun into electricity -- enough to power the house on bright days.
Hot water
Solar thermal panels heat a 1,000 gallon water tank. The result: free hot water.

fkasner wrote:

Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/12803477.htm
House pulses with solar energy
Lake Norman man offers lessons in cutting reliance on fuel
MIKE DRUMMOND
Staff Writer
Jeff Martin bear-hugs a massive, insulated 1,000-gallon water tank in his basement. "This," he proclaims, "is the heart of the house."
It's an apt metaphor. Solar thermal panels on his roof heat water that circulates around the heart-tank, and keeps his family of four in more hot water than they can use. Martin spends no money heating water, shaving 20 percent or more off his annual energy bill.
Built three years ago on Lake Norman, the house is a living experiment of the potential of solar energy and eco-friendly construction techniques. And with heating costs expected to hit record highs this winter, the Martin home also offers a lesson of what's possible today.
Energy-saving features include off-the-shelf glazed windows, compact fluorescent bulbs and the solar thermal water system.
Among the more exotic energy-saving aspects of the Martins' 4,750-square-foot home is a photovoltaic, or PV, system that carpets the south-facing, sun-splashed roof. Unlike the solar thermal system that also shares roof space, the PV system generates electricity. After clearing a tangle of red tape, this summer Martin, 38, began selling surplus electricity back to NC GreenPower, a nonprofit organization that encourages alternative energy use.
His largest energy bill to date: $152.87 this summer. He notes that friends from California visited for eight days and he cranked the air conditioning.
Martin is a business development manager for Microsoft Corp. He's as far from a survivalist or hippie as they come. Nonetheless, he's just old enough to recall when America was held energy-hostage during the 1970s oil embargo. He abhors the notion of dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Recent hurricane-related disruptions in fuel supply bolster his conservationist resolve.
He spent more than $60,000 on the PV portion of his solar arsenal, and likely will never totally recoup the cost of installation. But for him, the panels are aesthetically, spiritually and ecologically pleasing.
"I know of someone not too far from here who spent more than this on slate flooring for the entire house," he says. "Where's the payback on slate?"
For now, PV is the flying car of residential solar systems -- an unrealistic and cost-prohibitive option for most homeowners.
But solar thermal systems for heating water are viable. Throw in state and federal tax incentives, and solar thermal water systems are a "no-brainer," says Shawn Fitzpatrick, an energy specialist with the N.C. Solar Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for solar and other renewable energy programs.
A typical solar thermal water-heating system retrofitted for a single-family home can cost $4,000 to $5,000. An N.C. tax credit can shave up to $1,400. A federal tax credit that kicks in Jan. 1 can knock off $2,000. Total out-of-pocket for the system: between $600 and $1,600.
For a typical homeowner, the system can pay for itself in less than five years, Fitzpatrick says. Without the federal credit, which sunsets in 2008, it could take as long as 10 years.
Chris and Gretchen Witzgall took advantage of the state tax credit when they bought their new home in Wake County last year. They paid $379,000 for the 2,700-square-foot house. About $30,000 of that was for PV and solar thermal systems.
Like the Martins, the Witzgalls sell surplus electricity their home generates back to the grid -- in fact, both homeowners are listed as regulated utilities with the state. But it's the hot water from solar thermal that makes the biggest financial impact, Witzgall says.
"We have unlimited hot water," Witzgall, 38, adds. "That's probably the biggest saver."
He figures his monthly housing costs -- including a low-interest, seven-year balloon mortgage -- is $600 less than it would normally be, when energy savings from solar and other conservation features are factored in.
His highest electrical bill to date was $150 this summer, when he was running the air conditioning to keep the three-bedroom house at a constant 75 degrees.
Betsy Mayers, 60, has that beat. She says her electric bill for her 1,400-square-foot barnlike home near Asheville runs about $25 a month or $300 a year.
She built her house in 1990 -- it's been featured on a public television special -- and includes PV solar electric generation, solar thermal and other so-called passive solar features to keep heat in during winter and out during summer.
Like her solar brethren, she spends $0 heating water.
Moreover, like other conservation-minded homeowners, her desire to find a better way to use energy is as much about sovereignty as it is economics.
She says oil shortages of the 1970s "really affected me."
"I said, `When I get my dream house, I'm going to be as independent as possible.' "
Cool Ways to Warm
Green features of the Martin home � Eaves jut far enough to keep the summer sun out, but allow winter sun to splash indoors after the fall equinox.
� Polyurethane spray-on insulation instead of rolled fiberglass keeps the house so sealed that two air-exchange devices are needed to keep fresh air circulating. "It's one giant Igloo cooler," Martin says. He adds that his contractor told him he had more insulation than the ceiling of a Kmart superstore.
� Water pipes running under both stories can keep floors warm. Warmth
Pipes embedded in concrete throughout home keep floors -- and feet -- warm. Energy
The Martins sell back any surplus electricity the solar panels generate.
Power
Photovoltaic solar panels convert sun into electricity -- enough to power the house on bright days.
Hot water
Solar thermal panels heat a 1,000 gallon water tank. The result: free hot water.
I stopped reading this screed posing as a news report when I got to the part that said "he spent $60000 installing the ... and will probably never recover the cost of the ..." Proabably will never is right. I could run a house with AC/heating and electic lights etc. for over 20 years in the Chicago area for that amount of money. And that is a lot further north than NC where there is a lot more sunshine.
You see why some of us find most of these claims as specious!
FK

If his power bill exceeds $792.90 per month, then he breaks even.
See http://www.hsh.com/cgi-bin/flap.cgi?prin=60000&int=10&term=10&strt=Jan&stry=2002&full=No&ppay=0&apay=0&pay1=0&ppno=0 for 60K amortized at 10 years for 10 percent.
Provided, of course, that his system generates 264 Kilowatt hours per day. And that that EXACT amount gets used.
About 50 kilowatts peak power may do it. In Arizona with tracking.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a tutorial.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/12803477.htm
House pulses with solar energy
Lake Norman man offers lessons in cutting reliance on fuel
MIKE DRUMMOND
Staff Writer
Jeff Martin bear-hugs a massive, insulated 1,000-gallon water tank in his basement. "This," he proclaims, "is the heart of the house."
It's an apt metaphor. Solar thermal panels on his roof heat water that circulates around the heart-tank, and keeps his family of four in more hot water than they can use. Martin spends no money heating water, shaving 20 percent or more off his annual energy bill.
Built three years ago on Lake Norman, the house is a living experiment of the potential of solar energy and eco-friendly construction techniques. And with heating costs expected to hit record highs this winter, the Martin home also offers a lesson of what's possible today.
Energy-saving features include off-the-shelf glazed windows, compact fluorescent bulbs and the solar thermal water system.
Among the more exotic energy-saving aspects of the Martins' 4,750-square-foot home is a photovoltaic, or PV, system that carpets the south-facing, sun-splashed roof. Unlike the solar thermal system that also shares roof space, the PV system generates electricity. After clearing a tangle of red tape, this summer Martin, 38, began selling surplus electricity back to NC GreenPower, a nonprofit organization that encourages alternative energy use.
His largest energy bill to date: $152.87 this summer. He notes that friends from California visited for eight days and he cranked the air conditioning.
Martin is a business development manager for Microsoft Corp. He's as far from a survivalist or hippie as they come. Nonetheless, he's just old enough to recall when America was held energy-hostage during the 1970s oil embargo. He abhors the notion of dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Recent hurricane-related disruptions in fuel supply bolster his conservationist resolve.
He spent more than $60,000 on the PV portion of his solar arsenal, and likely will never totally recoup the cost of installation. But for him, the panels are aesthetically, spiritually and ecologically pleasing.
"I know of someone not too far from here who spent more than this on slate flooring for the entire house," he says. "Where's the payback on slate?"
For now, PV is the flying car of residential solar systems -- an unrealistic and cost-prohibitive option for most homeowners.
But solar thermal systems for heating water are viable. Throw in state and federal tax incentives, and solar thermal water systems are a "no-brainer," says Shawn Fitzpatrick, an energy specialist with the N.C. Solar Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for solar and other renewable energy programs.
A typical solar thermal water-heating system retrofitted for a single-family home can cost $4,000 to $5,000. An N.C. tax credit can shave up to $1,400. A federal tax credit that kicks in Jan. 1 can knock off $2,000. Total out-of-pocket for the system: between $600 and $1,600.
For a typical homeowner, the system can pay for itself in less than five years, Fitzpatrick says. Without the federal credit, which sunsets in 2008, it could take as long as 10 years.
Chris and Gretchen Witzgall took advantage of the state tax credit when they bought their new home in Wake County last year. They paid $379,000 for the 2,700-square-foot house. About $30,000 of that was for PV and solar thermal systems.
Like the Martins, the Witzgalls sell surplus electricity their home generates back to the grid -- in fact, both homeowners are listed as regulated utilities with the state. But it's the hot water from solar thermal that makes the biggest financial impact, Witzgall says.
"We have unlimited hot water," Witzgall, 38, adds. "That's probably the biggest saver."
He figures his monthly housing costs -- including a low-interest, seven-year balloon mortgage -- is $600 less than it would normally be, when energy savings from solar and other conservation features are factored in.
His highest electrical bill to date was $150 this summer, when he was running the air conditioning to keep the three-bedroom house at a constant 75 degrees.
Betsy Mayers, 60, has that beat. She says her electric bill for her 1,400-square-foot barnlike home near Asheville runs about $25 a month or $300 a year.
She built her house in 1990 -- it's been featured on a public television special -- and includes PV solar electric generation, solar thermal and other so-called passive solar features to keep heat in during winter and out during summer.
Like her solar brethren, she spends $0 heating water.
Moreover, like other conservation-minded homeowners, her desire to find a better way to use energy is as much about sovereignty as it is economics.
She says oil shortages of the 1970s "really affected me."
"I said, `When I get my dream house, I'm going to be as independent as possible.' "
Cool Ways to Warm
Green features of the Martin home � Eaves jut far enough to keep the summer sun out, but allow winter sun to splash indoors after the fall equinox.
� Polyurethane spray-on insulation instead of rolled fiberglass keeps the house so sealed that two air-exchange devices are needed to keep fresh air circulating. "It's one giant Igloo cooler," Martin says. He adds that his contractor told him he had more insulation than the ceiling of a Kmart superstore.
� Water pipes running under both stories can keep floors warm. Warmth
Pipes embedded in concrete throughout home keep floors -- and feet -- warm. Energy
The Martins sell back any surplus electricity the solar panels generate.
Power
Photovoltaic solar panels convert sun into electricity -- enough to power the house on bright days.
Hot water
Solar thermal panels heat a 1,000 gallon water tank. The result: free hot water.

I stopped reading this screed posing as a news report when I got to the part that said "he spent $60000 installing the ... and will probably never recover the cost of the ..." Proabably will never is right. I could run a house with AC/heating and electic lights etc. for over 20 years in the Chicago area for that amount of money. And that is a lot further north than NC where there is a lot more sunshine.
You see why some of us find most of these claims as specious!
FK

Don / Fkasner,
Before you complain further about the economics of solar, please do something for me. The two of you, get together and make a light bulb. Notice I did not say BUY a light bulb; I said MAKE a light bulb.
What's that? Don't have the skill or technique? Don't have about $100,000 worth of fabrication equipment at hand to blow the glass, remove the oxygen, and thread the filament? Well, then, light bulbs must not be a profitable venture, then.
This, Don/fkasner, is called Economy of Scale. If you only build a few thousand CD players, each CD player costs $800, and only the rich can afford it. However, if you sell MILLIONS of CD players, then you can buy a CD player for under $27:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?dest=9999999997&product_id=3056294&sourceid=0100000030660804302498
The same is true for PV panels. The first ones are going to be expensive, true, because mass production isn't involved. BUT economy has nothing to do with efficiency: it only gauges the relative nature of supply vs. demand, as I'm sure you know.
Now, Don, this is where my technical knowledge ends, so I'll have you find the answers for me. How much power, how much electricity is lost in transmission? Find the megawatts of generation and the estimated megawatts of use. How efficient is our transmission system?
Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?
I think you'll find that the evergy savings in what is normally lost over hundreds of miles of high voltage lines more than makes up for the energy required to make panels. But don't believe me - do your own research. If you can prove me wrong, post the math. I'll check back.
/Roy

fkasner wrote:

I stopped reading this screed posing as a news report when I got to the part that said "he spent $60000 installing the ... and will probably never recover the cost of the ..." Proabably will never is right. I could run a house with AC/heating and electic lights etc. for over 20 years in the Chicago area for that amount of money. And that is a lot further north than NC where there is a lot more sunshine.
You see why some of us find most of these claims as specious!
FK

I could buy a used YUGO and save a bundle over what you pay for your HUMMER.
What does that prove. People spend $60,000 just to say they spent $60,000 (and poor smucks like you can't afford $60,000, so they are rubbing your face in it with their conspicuous consumption and Rolls-Royce luxury brand-name purchases.
Your poverty and bad luck to live in Chicago have nothing to do with technical feasibility.
His house now has $60,000 improvements, which upped the resale value $180,000, because that's how the real-estate-bubble works. He just pocketted $120,000 of resale profits by paying too much for his hot water and electricity, while your tar-paper shack just lost vale because its the only one on the block still connected to the grid. These are examples why "economics" arguments are worthless wastes of time -- because spending too much money makes great profits while frugality loses money in this economy.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:42:46 GMT, fkasner wrote:

Global_Warming @Peacemail.com wrote: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/12803477.htm
House pulses with solar energy
Lake Norman man offers lessons in cutting reliance on fuel
MIKE DRUMMOND
Staff Writer
Jeff Martin bear-hugs a massive, insulated 1,000-gallon water tank in his basement. "This," he proclaims, "is the heart of the house."
It's an apt metaphor. Solar thermal panels on his roof heat water that circulates around the heart-tank, and keeps his family of four in more hot water than they can use. Martin spends no money heating water, shaving 20 percent or more off his annual energy bill.
Built three years ago on Lake Norman, the house is a living experiment of the potential of solar energy and eco-friendly construction techniques. And with heating costs expected to hit record highs this winter, the Martin home also offers a lesson of what's possible today.
Energy-saving features include off-the-shelf glazed windows, compact fluorescent bulbs and the solar thermal water system.
Among the more exotic energy-saving aspects of the Martins' 4,750-square-foot home is a photovoltaic, or PV, system that carpets the south-facing, sun-splashed roof. Unlike the solar thermal system that also shares roof space, the PV system generates electricity. After clearing a tangle of red tape, this summer Martin, 38, began selling surplus electricity back to NC GreenPower, a nonprofit organization that encourages alternative energy use.
His largest energy bill to date: $152.87 this summer. He notes that friends from California visited for eight days and he cranked the air conditioning.
Martin is a business development manager for Microsoft Corp. He's as far from a survivalist or hippie as they come. Nonetheless, he's just old enough to recall when America was held energy-hostage during the 1970s oil embargo. He abhors the notion of dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Recent hurricane-related disruptions in fuel supply bolster his conservationist resolve.
He spent more than $60,000 on the PV portion of his solar arsenal, and likely will never totally recoup the cost of installation. But for him, the panels are aesthetically, spiritually and ecologically pleasing.
"I know of someone not too far from here who spent more than this on slate flooring for the entire house," he says. "Where's the payback on slate?"
For now, PV is the flying car of residential solar systems -- an unrealistic and cost-prohibitive option for most homeowners.
But solar thermal systems for heating water are viable. Throw in state and federal tax incentives, and solar thermal water systems are a "no-brainer," says Shawn Fitzpatrick, an energy specialist with the N.C. Solar Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for solar and other renewable energy programs.
A typical solar thermal water-heating system retrofitted for a single-family home can cost $4,000 to $5,000. An N.C. tax credit can shave up to $1,400. A federal tax credit that kicks in Jan. 1 can knock off $2,000. Total out-of-pocket for the system: between $600 and $1,600.
For a typical homeowner, the system can pay for itself in less than five years, Fitzpatrick says. Without the federal credit, which sunsets in 2008, it could take as long as 10 years.
Chris and Gretchen Witzgall took advantage of the state tax credit when they bought their new home in Wake County last year. They paid $379,000 for the 2,700-square-foot house. About $30,000 of that was for PV and solar thermal systems.
Like the Martins, the Witzgalls sell surplus electricity their home generates back to the grid -- in fact, both homeowners are listed as regulated utilities with the state. But it's the hot water from solar thermal that makes the biggest financial impact, Witzgall says.
"We have unlimited hot water," Witzgall, 38, adds. "That's probably the biggest saver."
He figures his monthly housing costs -- including a low-interest, seven-year balloon mortgage -- is $600 less than it would normally be, when energy savings from solar and other conservation features are factored in.
His highest electrical bill to date was $150 this summer, when he was running the air conditioning to keep the three-bedroom house at a constant 75 degrees.
Betsy Mayers, 60, has that beat. She says her electric bill for her 1,400-square-foot barnlike home near Asheville runs about $25 a month or $300 a year.
She built her house in 1990 -- it's been featured on a public television special -- and includes PV solar electric generation, solar thermal and other so-called passive solar features to keep heat in during winter and out during summer.
Like her solar brethren, she spends $0 heating water.
Moreover, like other conservation-minded homeowners, her desire to find a better way to use energy is as much about sovereignty as it is economics.
She says oil shortages of the 1970s "really affected me."
"I said, `When I get my dream house, I'm going to be as independent as possible.' "
Cool Ways to Warm
Green features of the Martin home � Eaves jut far enough to keep the summer sun out, but allow winter sun to splash indoors after the fall equinox.
� Polyurethane spray-on insulation instead of rolled fiberglass keeps the house so sealed that two air-exchange devices are needed to keep fresh air circulating. "It's one giant Igloo cooler," Martin says. He adds that his contractor told him he had more insulation than the ceiling of a Kmart superstore.
� Water pipes running under both stories can keep floors warm. Warmth
Pipes embedded in concrete throughout home keep floors -- and feet -- warm. Energy
The Martins sell back any surplus electricity the solar panels generate.
Power
Photovoltaic solar panels convert sun into electricity -- enough to power the house on bright days.
Hot water
Solar thermal panels heat a 1,000 gallon water tank. The result: free hot water.
I stopped reading this screed posing as a news report when I got to the part that said "he spent $60000 installing the ... and will probably never recover the cost of the ..." Proabably will never is right.

That part of the article clearly describes a very wealthy person with a huge home on a lake. It hasn't much more to do with the average cost of home power than Michael Jackson's backyard amusement park has to do with your kids' swing set.

I could run a house with AC/heating and electic lights etc. for over 20 years in the Chicago area for that amount of money.

You have a 4750 sq.ft home? You already know how much energy is going to cost 20 years in the future? Turn that knowledge into dollars and then you'll consider $60k chump change. Now let me guess... energy is going to cost *more* in the future? I wonder what a smart guy might spend his home improvement dollars on?

And that is a lot further north than NC where there is a lot more sunshine.
You see why some of us find most of these claims as specious!

No, I don't. Most people can have home power for about the cost of a second SUV. But the resale value and payback of the power system will be better than an SUV's. Of course once they move all the McDonalds onto snow-covered peaks the power-system owner could be SOL.
Wayne

Fried Fred fkasner @fuckoff.com wrote:

fkasner wrote:
I stopped reading this screed posing as a news report when I got to the part that said "he spent $60000 installing the ... and will probably never recover the cost of the ..." Proabably will never is right. I could run a house with AC/heating and electic lights etc. for over 20 years in the Chicago area for that amount of money. And that is a lot further north than NC where there is a lot more sunshine.
You see why some of us find most of these claims as specious!
FK
I could buy a used YUGO and save a bundle over what you pay for your HUMMER.
What does that prove. People spend $60,000 just to say they spent $60,000 (and poor smucks like you can't afford $60,000, so they are rubbing your face in it with their conspicuous consumption and Rolls-Royce luxury brand-name purchases.
Your poverty and bad luck to live in Chicago have nothing to do with technical feasibility.
His house now has $60,000 improvements, which upped the resale value $180,000, because that's how the real-estate-bubble works. He just pocketted $120,000 of resale profits by paying too much for his hot water and electricity, while your tar-paper shack just lost vale because its the only one on the block still connected to the grid. These are examples why "economics" arguments are worthless wastes of time -- because spending too much money makes great profits while frugality loses money in this economy.

You are an utter fool. I paid $30,000 for my house many years ago. It is not worth probably close to 1/2 million. However I will never pay the taxes on selling it since I will leave it to my daughter who will have to sell it since she can't afford the taxes. As for people such as yourself who see inflation as a get rich quick scheme I see you as a pestilence aimed at the poor who suffer under imbeciles such as yourself in this country. FK

"Roy. Just Roy." wrote in message
<snip>

Now, Don, this is where my technical knowledge ends, so I'll have you find the answers for me. How much power, how much electricity is lost in transmission? Find the megawatts of generation and the estimated megawatts of use. How efficient is our transmission system?
Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?

Pretty simple, no "technical knowledge" required. To deliver 10 MW from "Canada to New York" :
Generation: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/hydro.html Hydroelectric power, a renewable resource, is generated when hydraulic turbines are turned by the force of moving water as it flows through a turbine. The water typically flows from a higher to a lower elevation. These turbines are connected to electrical generators, which produce the power. The efficiency of such systems can be close to 90 percent.
Transmission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_lines
"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1]"
http://www.wonderquest.com/power-line-loss.htm
"Small loss over high-voltage lines
Q: How much energy is lost of the high-voltage power lines as they transmit power? -- Bob King
A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."
How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%
Generation 90%, transmission 95% 11.7 Mw *90% (production) * 95% (transmission) = 10.00 Mw ***************************************************
Generating 10Mw "on your roof" and use it 50 feet away
http://www.solarserver.de/wissen/photovoltaik-e.html
Level of efficiency in % Lab Production
Monocrystalline Silicon approx 24 14 to 17 Polycrystalline Silicon approx 18 13 to 15 Amorphous Silicon approx 13 5 to 7
A place to put the electricity:
http://xtronics.com/reference/batterap.htm Battery Efficiency Energy efficiency is calculated on the amount of power used from the battery while discharging divided by the amount of power delivered to the batter while charging, multiplied by 100 to yield percent. Pout x 100 /Pin . A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%. The energy lost appears as heat and warms the battery. Keeping the charge and discharge rate of a battery low, helps keep a battery cool and improves the battery life. Te above losses don't include losses in the charging circuit which can run any where from 60 to 80% - thus the overall- total efficiency is the product of these numbers and ends up being 45 to 68%. (To further this example and to show why physics and not some corporate conspiracy is the reason we don't have electric cars - suppose the controls and motors on a car were 85% - the over all efficiency is now only 38 - 58%. You can see that an electric car would use about twice the energy than a conventional car - not to mention the great cost of the regular replacement of batteries. This is why batteries are best used where only intermittent, or very low power use is required.)
Turn it into AC power:
http://www.oksolar.com/dc-dc/100000watts_inverter.htm
"Peak Inverter Efficiency" 95%
We'll consider "transmission losses" on 50 feet negligable
Generation ~ 15% battery storage ~70% Inverter 95%
101Mw *15% (generation) *70%(battery) *95% (inverter) = 10 Mw
That was pretty simple.
The answer is: It is more efficient to generate 11.7Mw in "Canada" and deliver it to NY, than it is to supply 101Mw to your roof and use it 50 feet away.
***********************************************
What do we need to accomplish this?
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/learn/solarfaq.html
Solar is universal and will work virtually anywhere, however some locations are better than others. Irradiance is a measure of the sun's power available at the surface of the earth and it averages about 1000 watts per square meter. With typical crystalline solar cell efficiencies around 14-16%, that means we can expect to generate about 140-160W per square meter of solar cells placed in full sun. Insolation is a measure of the available energy from the sun and is expressed in terms of "full sun hours" (i.e. 4 full sun hours = 4 hours of sunlight at an irradiance level of 1000 watts per square meter).
So, you need to deliver about 15.5 Megawatts to the battery bank to get 10Mw AC delivered to your load
15,500,000 watts/160(watts/sq meter) = 96,875sq meters of panels....That will give you your 10Mw for 4 hours per day.
I've got about 110 Sq meters of south facing roof. You've got yourself one hell of a huge roof there.
I'll let you work out the rest regarding battery storage size, how many inverters, and the cost of this set up. Don't forget to multiply everything by minimum of 6 to achieve this 24hrs/day, or maybe by 20 to account for cloudy (less than 100% sunshine) all the time.

I think you'll find that the evergy savings in what is normally lost over hundreds of miles of high voltage lines more than makes up for the energy required to make panels. But don't believe me - do your own research. If you can prove me wrong, post the math. I'll check back.
/Roy

K. Jones

K. Jones wrote:

Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?
K. Jones

Ship to Canada to New York, of course. Which is why that is the way that everybody does it.
No means is known to generate ---any--- roof based net kilowatt hours.
And even if solar pv ever becomes a net energy source (unlikely for at least a decade or two), it STILL will DEMAND the grid for cost effective storage.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed tutorial.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Don Lancaster wrote:

K. Jones wrote:
Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?
K. Jones


Ship to Canada to New York, of course. Which is why that is the way that everybody does it.
No means is known to generate ---any--- roof based net kilowatt hours.
And even if solar pv ever becomes a net energy source (unlikely for at least a decade or two), it STILL will DEMAND the grid for cost effective storage.

PV made from EMC SoG Si will replace the entire global energy production within ten years. H2 from PV electrolysis will fuel the entire world's fleet of internal combustion engines in 10 years.
Totally automated factories will take in recycled glass bottles in one end and output assembled PV panels on the other with human hands ever touching a part during the process. The factory will be totally powered by sunlight and Hydrogen.

K. Jones wrote:

"Roy. Just Roy." wrote in message
snip
Now, Don, this is where my technical knowledge ends, so I'll have you find the answers for me. How much power, how much electricity is lost in transmission? Find the megawatts of generation and the estimated megawatts of use. How efficient is our transmission system?
Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?
Pretty simple, no "technical knowledge" required. To deliver 10 MW from "Canada to New York" :
Generation: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/hydro.html Hydroelectric power, a renewable resource, is generated when hydraulic turbines are turned by the force of moving water as it flows through a turbine. The water typically flows from a higher to a lower elevation. These turbines are connected to electrical generators, which produce the power. The efficiency of such systems can be close to 90 percent.
Transmission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_lines
"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1]"

That is gross from local utility to local consumer. The farther the consumer from the utility, the more line losses from resistence. A global average cannot be used to compute a particular path distance.
This has the appearance of deceptive citation to buffalo the less educated by a sadistic disinformation maniac.

http://www.wonderquest.com/power-line-loss.htm
"Small loss over high-voltage lines
Q: How much energy is lost of the high-voltage power lines as they transmit power? -- Bob King
A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."

Again, not loss PER MILE figure is given. Why NOT?
You know why the high tension wires are NOT insulated? Because the heat (waste energy) would burn up that insulation. Bare wires cool better. That heat is lost as measurable resistence ever mile. Do the math based on the resistence of the wire and the current flow in the wire. Then come back and talk.

How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%

Likely deception. Put a heavy power saw on 500 feet of extension cord and see if enough power succeeds in getting through the wire to let the saw cut any wood. The reason that meters are installed on houses, instead of installed at the closest power pole for easier reading without the meter guy tresspassing in your yard is the public would squalk at the higher bills -- that's how much juice gets lost from the pole transformer to the house.

K. Jones wrote:

"Roy. Just Roy." wrote in message
snip
Now, Don, this is where my technical knowledge ends, so I'll have you find the answers for me. How much power, how much electricity is lost in transmission? Find the megawatts of generation and the estimated megawatts of use. How efficient is our transmission system?
Now tell me, which is more efficient, to generate 100 MW and ship it from Canada to New York, with all the assorted resistances along the way, or to generate 10 MW on your roof, and use it 50 feet away?
Pretty simple, no "technical knowledge" required. To deliver 10 MW from "Canada to New York" :
Generation: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/hydro.html Hydroelectric power, a renewable resource, is generated when hydraulic turbines are turned by the force of moving water as it flows through a turbine. The water typically flows from a higher to a lower elevation. These turbines are connected to electrical generators, which produce the power. The efficiency of such systems can be close to 90 percent.
Transmission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_lines
"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1]"
http://www.wonderquest.com/power-line-loss.htm
"Small loss over high-voltage lines
Q: How much energy is lost of the high-voltage power lines as they transmit power? -- Bob King
A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."
How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%
Generation 90%, transmission 95% 11.7 Mw *90% (production) * 95% (transmission) = 10.00 Mw ***************************************************
Generating 10Mw "on your roof" and use it 50 feet away
http://www.solarserver.de/wissen/photovoltaik-e.html
Level of efficiency in % Lab Production
Monocrystalline Silicon approx 24 14 to 17 Polycrystalline Silicon approx 18 13 to 15 Amorphous Silicon approx 13 5 to 7
A place to put the electricity:
http://xtronics.com/reference/batterap.htm Battery Efficiency Energy efficiency is calculated on the amount of power used from the battery while discharging divided by the amount of power delivered to the batter while charging, multiplied by 100 to yield percent. Pout x 100 /Pin . A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%. The energy lost appears as heat and warms the battery. Keeping the charge and discharge rate of a battery low, helps keep a battery cool and improves the battery life. Te above losses don't include losses in the charging circuit which can run any where from 60 to 80% - thus the overall- total efficiency is the product of these numbers and ends up being 45 to 68%. (To further this example and to show why physics and not some corporate conspiracy is the reason we don't have electric cars - suppose the controls and motors on a car were 85% - the over all efficiency is now only 38 - 58%. You can see that an electric car would use about twice the energy than a conventional car - not to mention the great cost of the regular replacement of batteries. This is why batteries are best used where only intermittent, or very low power use is required.)
Turn it into AC power:
http://www.oksolar.com/dc-dc/100000watts_inverter.htm
"Peak Inverter Efficiency" 95%
We'll consider "transmission losses" on 50 feet negligable
Generation ~ 15% battery storage ~70% Inverter 95%
101Mw *15% (generation) *70%(battery) *95% (inverter) = 10 Mw
That was pretty simple.
The answer is: It is more efficient to generate 11.7Mw in "Canada" and deliver it to NY, than it is to supply 101Mw to your roof and use it 50 feet away.
***********************************************
What do we need to accomplish this?
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/learn/solarfaq.html
Solar is universal and will work virtually anywhere, however some locations are better than others. Irradiance is a measure of the sun's power available at the surface of the earth and it averages about 1000 watts per square meter. With typical crystalline solar cell efficiencies around 14-16%, that means we can expect to generate about 140-160W per square meter of solar cells placed in full sun. Insolation is a measure of the available energy from the sun and is expressed in terms of "full sun hours" (i.e. 4 full sun hours = 4 hours of sunlight at an irradiance level of 1000 watts per square meter).
So, you need to deliver about 15.5 Megawatts to the battery bank to get 10Mw AC delivered to your load
15,500,000 watts/160(watts/sq meter) = 96,875sq meters of panels....That will give you your 10Mw for 4 hours per day.
I've got about 110 Sq meters of south facing roof. You've got yourself one hell of a huge roof there.
I'll let you work out the rest regarding battery storage size, how many inverters, and the cost of this set up. Don't forget to multiply everything by minimum of 6 to achieve this 24hrs/day, or maybe by 20 to account for cloudy (less than 100% sunshine) all the time.
I think you'll find that the evergy savings in what is normally lost
over hundreds of miles of high voltage lines more than makes up for the energy required to make panels. But don't believe me - do your own research. If you can prove me wrong, post the math. I'll check back.
/Roy

K. Jones

Outstanding post.

Very clearly and succinctly put.
j.

You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:

K. Jones wrote:
Outstanding post.
Very clearly and succinctly put.
j.

Succinctly put but all lies...
That is gross from local utility to local consumer. The farther the consumer from the utility, the more line losses from resistence. A global average cannot be used to compute a particular path distance.
This has the appearance of deceptive citation to buffalo the less educated by a sadistic disinformation maniac.

http://www.wonderquest.com/power-line-loss.htm
"Small loss over high-voltage lines
Q: How much energy is lost of the high-voltage power lines as they transmit power? -- Bob King
A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."

Again, not loss PER MILE figure is given. Why NOT?
You know why the high tension wires are NOT insulated? Because the heat (waste energy) would burn up that insulation. Bare wires cool better. That heat is lost as measurable resistence ever mile. Do the math based on the resistence of the wire and the current flow in the wire. Then come back and talk.

How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%

Likely deception. Put a heavy power saw on 500 feet of extension cord and see if enough power succeeds in getting through the wire to let the saw cut any wood. The reason that meters are installed on houses, instead of installed at the closest power pole for easier reading without the meter guy tresspassing in your yard is the public would squalk at the higher bills -- that's how much juice gets lost from the pole transformer to the house.

H2-PV NOW wrote:

You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
K. Jones wrote:
Outstanding post.
Very clearly and succinctly put.
j.
Succinctly put but all lies...
That is gross from local utility to local consumer. The farther the consumer from the utility, the more line losses from resistence. A global average cannot be used to compute a particular path distance.
This has the appearance of deceptive citation to buffalo the less educated by a sadistic disinformation maniac.
http://www.wonderquest.com/power-line-loss.htm
"Small loss over high-voltage lines
Q: How much energy is lost of the high-voltage power lines as they transmit power? -- Bob King
A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."
Again, not loss PER MILE figure is given. Why NOT?
You know why the high tension wires are NOT insulated? Because the heat (waste energy) would burn up that insulation. Bare wires cool better. That heat is lost as measurable resistence ever mile. Do the math based on the resistence of the wire and the current flow in the wire. Then come back and talk.
How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%
Likely deception. Put a heavy power saw on 500 feet of extension cord and see if enough power succeeds in getting through the wire to let the saw cut any wood. The reason that meters are installed on houses, instead of installed at the closest power pole for easier reading without the meter guy tresspassing in your yard is the public would squalk at the higher bills -- that's how much juice gets lost from the pole transformer to the house.

well, as my mother always said: "the one thing worse than being ignorant, is knowing something that just ain't so."
entirely applicable here.
j.

<snip>

A: A transmission line loses about 3 to 4% of the energy sent over the line, says Greg Miller, head of transmission development at the Public Service Company of New Mexico. So, if we want to get 100 wegawatts at the receiving line, we need to send 103 to 104 megawatts."
Again, not loss PER MILE figure is given. Why NOT?
You know why the high tension wires are NOT insulated? Because the heat (waste energy) would burn up that insulation. Bare wires cool better. That heat is lost as measurable resistence ever mile. Do the math based on the resistence of the wire and the current flow in the wire. Then come back and talk.

that's nuts. if the high tension wires gave off that much heat (enought to melt off any insulation), they'd pull apart like taffy under the HIGH TENSION mechanical loading the wires are under.

How far from "Canada" to New York city?
From anyone of major generation sources: Pickering Ontario Canada (Nuclear Power Plant) to New York about 500 miles Niagara Falls Ontario Canada (Hydro Electric Dam) to New York about 400 miles Nanticoke Ontario Canada (4,400Mw Coal fired plant) to New York about 450 miles
Work it out:
Utilities claim real-world transmission losses of between 3% and 7%. "Canada" to New York City, New York, isn't very far, transmission losses likely are under 2%
Likely deception. Put a heavy power saw on 500 feet of extension cord and see if enough power succeeds in getting through the wire to let the saw cut any wood.

not if you are using wires that are too small for the rated power need of the saw. basic physics apply. its not a conspiracy.

The reason that meters are installed on houses, instead of installed at the closest power pole for easier reading without the meter guy tresspassing in your yard is the public would squalk at the higher bills -- that's how much juice gets lost from the pole transformer to the house.

that's nuts too. feel the connection coming down from the pole to the house above the meter.
is it warm? is it hot?
nope.