Renewable energy

Oil, coal, hydrogen, fuel cells, hybrid cars, renewables, geothermal, economical growth



N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home EAST AMWELL, N.J., Oct. 24 (UPI) -- A New Jersey home is the first in the country to be powered completely by solar and hydrogen energy.
Michael Stritzki used $100,000 of his own money, along with corporate, private and government grants, to build turn his East Amwell, N.J., home into a pioneering hybrid that was unveiled Friday.
The former state Department of Transportation engineer said he ran into some red-tape with local code enforcement unfamiliar with this somewhat new technology (NASA powers space shuttles with hydrogen).
"Things that people don't understand, they're afraid of," Stritzki said. "Hydrogen is just another gas, and it's safer than all the fossil fuels we currently know."
Solar panels on the roof of Stritzki's garage produce extra electricity in the summer which is used for processing hydrogen from water. The hydrogen then powers a fuel cell, which covers any energy needs the solar panels can't meet for the two-story home with a big-screen TV, swimming pool and a hot tub, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
The state's Board of Public Utilities funneled $250,000 for Stritzki's home from a Clean Energy Program. The remaining $150,000 came from private and corporate sponsors and loans.
"We're not anticipating this exact project to be duplicated everywhere," said Connie Hughes, a utility commissioner, "but we do see this as one of the ways to address New Jersey's goals of having 20 percent of our energy coming from renewables by the year 2020."
Lyle Rawlings, president of Advanced Solar Products and Stritzki's design engineer, said "New Jersey has shown the will, the leadership to the rest of the country, and it's up to them to catch up because we're in the vanguard."

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Lets say he uses 2000 KW-hr a month. Thats about a $300 bill at $.15 a KW-hr, and about 66KW-hr a day avg. 13KW of panels and 5 hrs of sun would meet that avg. That's about a $100K system using $8 a watt installed as the rule of thumb. Instead of batteries, he has an electrolyzer and a fuel cell. Lets say the experimental electrolyzer/fuel cell system can be reduced from $150K to say $30K in a few years, so total system cost is $130K. Hes paying back at 66 x $.15 or about $10 a day, so he needs 13000 days to pay back... 36 years.

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Thanks for the math lesson. Happy Holidays ! BobG wrote:

Lets say he uses 2000 KW-hr a month. Thats about a $300 bill at $.15 a KW-hr, and about 66KW-hr a day avg. 13KW of panels and 5 hrs of sun would meet that avg. That's about a $100K system using $8 a watt installed as the rule of thumb. Instead of batteries, he has an electrolyzer and a fuel cell. Lets say the experimental electrolyzer/fuel cell system can be reduced from $150K to say $30K in a few years, so total system cost is $130K. Hes paying back at 66 x $.15 or about $10 a day, so he needs 13000 days to pay back... 36 years.

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

On 18 Dec 2006 09:50:41 -0800, "BobG" wrote:

Lets say he uses 2000 KW-hr a month. Thats about a $300 bill at $.15 a KW-hr, and about 66KW-hr a day avg. 13KW of panels and 5 hrs of sun would meet that avg. That's about a $100K system using $8 a watt installed as the rule of thumb. Instead of batteries, he has an electrolyzer and a fuel cell. Lets say the experimental electrolyzer/fuel cell system can be reduced from $150K to say $30K in a few years, so total system cost is $130K. Hes paying back at 66 x $.15 or about $10 a day, so he needs 13000 days to pay back... 36 years.

I understand banks are offering 50 year mortgages now. :-)
But some states allow some innovative financing, California has had interest only loans on apartment buildings for 50 years already, and may have extended that to private homes, maybe other states have similar options.
I don't know if I want a neighbor to have 10,000 gallon tanks of compressed hydrogen close to me, but hydrogen may have some storage features better than batteries.
But I really think the same amount of money put into solar thermal is the best idea, storage is safer even if more mass is needed to store the same amount of energy. Water can store about 1000 BTU per gallon, safely, and eutectic salts can store about the same, but with more energy near the desired temperature. I think the most useful hydrogen will be with systems that use the hydrogen as it is produced, and there may be more of those than first realized.
The NJ guy must have had pull, it's a wonder there was not an investigation. :-)
Joe Fischer

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Joe Fischer wrote:

The NJ guy must have had pull, it's a wonder there was not an investigation. :-) ==========================================

He was a very well-connected guy. You got a problem with that?

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

I read once that in Japan , they issued 100 year mortgages. Joe Fischer wrote:

On 18 Dec 2006 09:50:41 -0800, "BobG" wrote:
Lets say he uses 2000 KW-hr a month. Thats about a $300 bill at $.15 a KW-hr, and about 66KW-hr a day avg. 13KW of panels and 5 hrs of sun would meet that avg. That's about a $100K system using $8 a watt installed as the rule of thumb. Instead of batteries, he has an electrolyzer and a fuel cell. Lets say the experimental electrolyzer/fuel cell system can be reduced from $150K to say $30K in a few years, so total system cost is $130K. Hes paying back at 66 x $.15 or about $10 a day, so he needs 13000 days to pay back... 36 years.
I understand banks are offering 50 year mortgages now. :-)
But some states allow some innovative financing, California has had interest only loans on apartment buildings for 50 years already, and may have extended that to private homes, maybe other states have similar options.
I don't know if I want a neighbor to have 10,000 gallon tanks of compressed hydrogen close to me, but hydrogen may have some storage features better than batteries.
But I really think the same amount of money put into solar thermal is the best idea, storage is safer even if more mass is needed to store the same amount of energy. Water can store about 1000 BTU per gallon, safely, and eutectic salts can store about the same, but with more energy near the desired temperature.
I think the most useful hydrogen will be with systems that use the hydrogen as it is produced, and there may be more of those than first realized.
The NJ guy must have had pull, it's a wonder there was not an investigation. :-)
Joe Fischer

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Please let me know where I can score one of those 36 year No Interest Loans He must be an outstanding engineer to produce this system that lasts 36 years with Zero Maintenance. I especially liked the way you brought the system cost down from the $500,000 actually spent on the project to the $130,000 used in your somewhat optimistic calculations. Retrieving hydrogen from water using solar cells is an economic sink hole and it will be for many decades to come. I would invite you to check back in on this project in 5 years to see if it's still operational.
"BobG" wrote in message

Lets say he uses 2000 KW-hr a month. Thats about a $300 bill at $.15 a KW-hr, and about 66KW-hr a day avg. 13KW of panels and 5 hrs of sun would meet that avg. That's about a $100K system using $8 a watt installed as the rule of thumb. Instead of batteries, he has an electrolyzer and a fuel cell. Lets say the experimental electrolyzer/fuel cell system can be reduced from $150K to say $30K in a few years, so total system cost is $130K. Hes paying back at 66 x $.15 or about $10 a day, so he needs 13000 days to pay back... 36 years.

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Jack wrote:

I especially liked the way you brought the system cost down from the $500,000 actually spent on the project to the $130,000 used in your somewhat optimistic calculations. ==============================

Article said system cost was $250K... I figured he paid his $100K for the PV system and the power company paid $150K for the electrolyzer and fuel cell. My calcs used $30K for that same equipment, hoping for cost reduction when equipment is in production. I think the numbers show that using an electrolyzer and fuel cell instead of batteries to bank extra PV watts is not a silver bullet that allows 1000s of KW-hrs a month at $.15 per KW-hr or cheaper. Electricity from coal and gas will probably continue to get more expensive, and not too many people can pay up front for equipment with a 36 year payback. Don't you agree?

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

BobG wrote:

My calcs used $30K for that same equipment, hoping for cost reduction when equipment is in production.

Bwahahahahahahaha !
Another hydrogen nutcase.
Graham

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Eeyore wrote:

Another hydrogen nutcase. =================================

I think this means: you think that my extrapolation that $150K of electrolyser and fuel cell could be manufactured and sold for $30K in quantity is incorrect. I assume you think the extrapolated price is too low. I based this guess on other commodity items that have dropped in price after being produced by multiple sources. Do I also infer that you think the 36 year payback is too optimistic? I thought I was showing that even the announcement of this experimental house in NJ isnt going to lead to magically cheap home energy.

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

BobG wrote:

Eeyore wrote: Another hydrogen nutcase. ================================= I think this means: you think that my extrapolation that $150K of electrolyser and fuel cell could be manufactured and sold for $30K in quantity is incorrect. I assume you think the extrapolated price is too low. I based this guess on other commodity items that have dropped in price after being produced by multiple sources. Do I also infer that you think the 36 year payback is too optimistic? I thought I was showing that even the announcement of this experimental house in NJ isnt going to lead to magically cheap home energy.

No home energy will ever be *cheap*. My apologies if I misunderstood you.
Is that an adequate answer ?
Personally I'm in favour of first class home insulation. There are many, many ways to optimise this depending on the style of construction.
When the required energy input has been reduced to a low figure then it finally may make sense to consider high-expense methods to provide that energy but certainly never before.
Graham

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

The article puts the system cost at $500,000 $250,000 from Clean Energy Program $150,000 from private and corporate sponsors $100,000 from Michael Stritzki's personal accounts
I quote - "Michael Stritzki used $100,000 of his own money, along with corporate, private and government grants, to build turn his East Amwell, N.J., home into a pioneering hybrid that was unveiled Friday.
The former state Department of Transportation engineer said he ran into some red-tape with local code enforcement unfamiliar with this somewhat new technology (NASA powers space shuttles with hydrogen).
"Things that people don't understand, they're afraid of," Stritzki said. "Hydrogen is just another gas, and it's safer than all the fossil fuels we currently know."
Solar panels on the roof of Stritzki's garage produce extra electricity in the summer which is used for processing hydrogen from water. The hydrogen then powers a fuel cell, which covers any energy needs the solar panels can't meet for the two-story home with a big-screen TV, swimming pool and a hot tub, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
The state's Board of Public Utilities funneled $250,000 for Stritzki's home from a Clean Energy Program. The remaining $150,000 came from private and corporate sponsors and loans."
Even the most optimistic economic analysis of this situation would show that he is paying $4000/month for $300 worth of electricity. The problem here is that he has compounded two really bad ideas. Making electricity with solar panels is a very expensive process suitable only for use in really inaccessible places like outer space or antarctica. Using that electricity to extract hydrogen from water wastes a large part of the energy as heat and leaves you with something you have to burn to get the energy back which results in yet another efficiency loss. This system would not be practical even if the installed cost was zero as I am quite sure it would cost more than $300/month just to keep it going.
"BobG" wrote in message

Jack wrote: I especially liked the way you brought the system cost down from the $500,000 actually spent on the project to the $130,000 used in your somewhat optimistic calculations. ============================== Article said system cost was $250K... I figured he paid his $100K for the PV system and the power company paid $150K for the electrolyzer and fuel cell. My calcs used $30K for that same equipment, hoping for cost reduction when equipment is in production. I think the numbers show that using an electrolyzer and fuel cell instead of batteries to bank extra PV watts is not a silver bullet that allows 1000s of KW-hrs a month at $.15 per KW-hr or cheaper. Electricity from coal and gas will probably continue to get more expensive, and not too many people can pay up front for equipment with a 36 year payback. Don't you agree?

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Jack wrote:

The article puts the system cost at $500,000 $250,000 from Clean Energy Program $150,000 from private and corporate sponsors $100,000 from Michael Stritzki's personal accounts .... Even the most optimistic economic analysis of this situation would show that he is paying $4000/month for $300 worth of electricity.

Another way to look at this is that he spend $100,000 to gain $500,000 in equipment plus publicity and who knows what other benefits. It takes a good talker to turn $1 into $5 that easily and quickly.
Anthony

N.J. man has first solar-hydrogen home

Anybody that says "Hydrogen is just another gas" is a complete idiot that knows nothing of LEL, UEL, LFL & UFL and should not be publicly commenting on this subject.
http://www.hydrogensafety.info/archives/2004/feb/1.html
"Jack" wrote in message

"Things that people don't understand, they're afraid of," Stritzki said. "Hydrogen is just another gas, and it's safer than all the fossil fuels we currently know."


Energy, oil and gas > Renewable energy

Travelers and hotels or travel site. Flights by vacation and cars.