Ideas for solar power in home --

Look into a do it yourself geothermal project. Do some web searches. Basically you keep water underground in tubes and circulate it through the house. Or cool air from a heat exchanger. If you are in a dry area evaporative coolers are a good way to go.
Ditto the other suggestions.
All the best,
Ron Wagner

"daestrom" wrote in message

"Johnny" wrote in message
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:
| Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on | mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of | the cost of standard cells. | Well where are they?
In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities being addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.
Yeah, right. Those darn 'centralized power authorities' keep making that electricity so cheaply, that PV panels have a hard time being economical. They are obviously deliberately underpricing those billion dollar nuc plants, and such just to keep the PV market stifled.
daestrom

I have heard that the federal government pays some $10B a year for nuclear power plant insurance. This would be like a subsidy paid for by all the taxpayers but benefiting only the industry and those that use that power.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:08:01 GMT, "SJC" wrote:

"daestrom" wrote in message
"Johnny" wrote in message
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:
| Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on | mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of | the cost of standard cells. | Well where are they?
In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities being addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.
Yeah, right. Those darn 'centralized power authorities' keep making that electricity so cheaply, that PV panels have a hard time being economical. They are obviously deliberately underpricing those billion dollar nuc plants, and such just to keep the PV market stifled.
daestrom
I have heard that the federal government pays some $10B a year for nuclear power plant insurance. This would be like a subsidy paid for by all the taxpayers but benefiting only the industry and those that use that power.

I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.
Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter" wrote:

The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. There exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. The production facilities that are around are small by industrial standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works attached could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, assuming a 10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a great profit margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a 10% time value of money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.
The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming available.

If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some applications, e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air conditioning season. Beyond that, I think you have to take into account the cost and inefficiency of batteries or the infrastructure and staffing that provide power on cloudy days. Wind has the same problem -- wind power is already in the $0.05/kWh range, which after subsidies and indirect costs is probably competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always blow, and storage would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read proposals to tie widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not sure if that would be price effective given grid losses.
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

On 8 Feb 2006 12:05:56 -0800, "ghostwriter" wrote:

Interesting, large scale energy investments have always been included in the value of a property during an appraisal (PV panel for instance). I assume that solar thermal installation would also give a boost to a value. But the smaller stuff is harder to quantify.
I imagine that the gas and electical budget might start to become a factor with a positive or negative adjustment based on the % difference from the average of similar sized and located homes. A home with a $350 dollar combined gas and electric budget and a mortgage payment of $500 has a monthly outlay of $850. The same home after impovements may have a $300 new combined budget, that $50/month is worth about $7000 assuming 30 years at 7.5%. It makes sense to include that 7K in an updated value of the home. By the same token a poorly built home with a $400 combined budget would see the retail value fall that same 7K compared to the average.

That's the way it should work, anyway! I gather from what I've read that the market isn't always that rational. Some people may look upon solar power as a complicated albatross (and in some installations they're right!), or find solar panels unsightly. In other cases, something like a pleasant sunroom can add more to the value of the property than its energy contribution would suggest.
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

"Josh Hill" wrote in message

On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter" ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. There exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. The production facilities that are around are small by industrial standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works attached could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, assuming a 10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a great profit margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a 10% time value of money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.
The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming available.
If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some applications, e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air conditioning season. Beyond that, I think you have to take into account the cost and inefficiency of batteries or the infrastructure and staffing that provide power on cloudy days. Wind has the same problem -- wind power is already in the $0.05/kWh range, which after subsidies and indirect costs is probably competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always blow, and storage would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read proposals to tie widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not sure if that would be price effective given grid losses.
-- Josh

I have seen plans to tie wind to water pumps to bring water uphill and let it out to generate power when needed. Seemed like a good idea.

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:40:31 GMT, "daestrom" wrote:

"Josh Hill" wrote in message
What I had in mind was more of a lien on the property, in that the energy company would have a right to tack payments onto the bill for any structure built at that location until the loan was satisfied. That would keep sleazy operators from for example conspiring with a contractor to install energy-saving appliances in a house that was about to be demolished and sticking the power company with the bill. It would also allow the power company to offer the loan to people who would otherwise be bad credit risks, which would include the people most likely to take advantage of the offer, those for whom a power bill is a major expense.
It's just an idea I had a few weeks ago -- I haven't thought through all of the ramifications and it hasn't been vetted by experts.
You could put a lien on the equipment as you suggest, but I'm afraid a program like that would be open to fraud unless the purchasers' credit history was vetted, as it would be if they bought a car or major appliance on credit. I assume that a bank or finance company loses a significant amount of its investment if it has to repossess and sell a used asset at auction, and this would be doubly so in the case of things like insulation and caulking, which can't be resold and may be more expensive to remove than to abandon, or efficient heating systems which are to some extent customized and required a lot of effort install or demolish. That's one of the problems with current energy loans. For example, my state offers them, and I suggested one to someone I know, but while she's responsible and has never defaulted on a loan she's maxed out and so wouldn't be accepted by the program even though the efficiency upgrades would yield a positive cash flow.
Another possibility I've seen discussed is allowing people to refinance their mortgages to include the value added by energy-saving investments.
Your idea has some good points. But a couple of issues.
For the power company to have a lien against some property, then it would have to be recorded in the public record. Now, try and sell your house. Most prospective buyers would not be able to get financing because their bank would not be able to be recorded as the first mortgage/lien holder. (the 'first mortgage' is the oldest recorded outstanding claim against the property. Banks want this position because if the loan defaults, they are first in line to receive the proceeds from any forced sale). So you'd have to pay off the lien before you sold the house. Not a complete 'show-stopper', but a complication.
Considering that the 'average homeowner' moves every 5 to 7 years, the utility loan would have to be set up to pay off somewhere in that time frame.
Refinancing with a 'home improvement' loan is tough in this case because banks/realtors can't put a good solid price on the value added. It isn't just the retail 'sticker price' of the system. It's how much more the average buyer would be willing to pay because your home has this extra 'feature'. Kind of like how much more is your home worth if you have a second bath, or a fireplace. But those features are common enough that realtors/appraisors can put a fairly reliable number on them. And if the appraisal doesn't justify the added 'value', the bank won't make the loan for it.

That reinforces my sense that the traditional approach isn't the most effective one, and that the government would have to get involved, not to write the loans, but to pass the enabling legislation that would overcome these and similar obstacles.
Since the energy audit would be performed by a professional energy assessor, the upgrades would be installed only if they yielded on average a positive cash flow, and the loan would be part of the utility bill whoever owned the house, I don't think the lien would concern a bank writing a new mortgage; if the house were auctioned off, the bank would receive all proceeds, and the new owner would inherit the obligation for continued payments for items in the fixed plant, assuming that the legislation required that.
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:00:28 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXIdeas.usenet.us.com wrote:

In alt.energy.renewable Josh Hill wrote: Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? There are currently some home energy loans, but they're complicated, obscure, vary from state to state, and typically aren't available to the people who would be most likely to use them.
In one sense, payback of solar power could be achieved if payments on a loan to install solar were exactly the amount that you would otherwise pay for electricity.

That's a good point. I was thinking in terms of positive cash flow, but neutral cash flow would work as well.

That was offered to me by SunPowerGeo, but it has since been retracted to applying only to commercial installations.
I think it is offered by Akeena Solar, as part of their "positive cash flow in the first year".

I've seen some other programs that accomplish this to varying degrees. Here in Connecticut, forex, the state offers low-interest energy loans to qualified borrowers, though I gather it's left up to the buyer to figure out whether he'll get positive cash flow.
An excellent point that some have made is that the return on an energy saving loan is interest free, and depending on the investment can be fairly spectacular compared to a similar amount invested in real estate or the stock market. Some friends here invested in a geothermal heat pump -- extremely expensive, but with gas prices being what they are they hit payback far sooner than they thought they would, in just a few years. But I'm afraid most people don't look at it that way -- they see it as an expense . . .
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:08:07 GMT, "SJC" wrote:

"Josh Hill" wrote in message On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter" ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. There exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. The production facilities that are around are small by industrial standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works attached could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, assuming a 10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a great profit margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a 10% time value of money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh.
The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming available.
If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some applications, e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air conditioning season. Beyond that, I think you have to take into account the cost and inefficiency of batteries or the infrastructure and staffing that provide power on cloudy days. Wind has the same problem -- wind power is already in the $0.05/kWh range, which after subsidies and indirect costs is probably competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always blow, and storage would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read proposals to tie widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not sure if that would be price effective given grid losses.
-- Josh
I have seen plans to tie wind to water pumps to bring water uphill and let it out to generate power when needed. Seemed like a good idea.

I found this article on pumped storage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
According to the article, the storage conversion efficiency is between 70-85 percent, but I don't see anything about how much the land, construction, and maintenance would add to the cost of the electricity, so I'm not sure whether it would push the price of wind power out of the ballpark or not. And since it's subject to evaporation, the availability of the water might also be a problem in arid areas such as the west. Destruction of habit and arable land might also be a concern. That being said, it would be fabulous if it proved economical, wouldn't it? I'd much rather see carefully-sited wind turbines than nuclear . . .
-- Josh
"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale." - Alberto Gonzales

<snip>

I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.
Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.

I've seen a number of posts lately of people that are running PV and making it work. Contributing factors seem to be ability to sell back and state and federal tax credits (US). One guy had already paid back his system over 5 years.
Whether this is good fiscal policy is debatable and there are certainly many other ways that are vastly more feasible and economic.
What strikes me though is the investment big oil has in PV. The large number of solar powered gas stations by BP in particular. Shell also seems to be a big player.
From what I gather there is a shortage relative to demand. With the high cost and what I assume to be the high profit of PV it may only be a matter of time before first the Koreans, and then the Chinese jump into this fully. I remember in the mid to late 90's when only the Japanese (mostly) made RAM and kept conspiring to create shortages to drive up the price to about $50/meg (I think you can get a gig now for that). That price certainly encouraged companies in other countries to make the investment.
I think there is greater inherent cost for PV but I wonder when PV will become a comodity. I would think that many forms (like polycrystaline) are already mature.
Jimmy Carter gets little credit but it was his policies that drove electric generation off of oil and onto natural gas and coal. Can you imagine what the cost of electricity and gas would be now if that hadn't happened?
Cheers, Jeff >

Morris Dovey wrote:

Jeff Thies (in uBqGf.15572$vU2.13441@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net) said:
| <snip ||| There is a kind of home appliances supermarket here in California ||| called Frys which stocks solar panels so they do show up in retail ||| stores. || || Thank you for the info, but in South Carolina can I get Frys to || ship to me? || | The online store is: | <URL: http://outpost.com/
Jeff...
Thanks for posting the link! When I last checked (SJ store in 1991) all purchases had to be in-store and carried away (usually after waiting in a long check-out line). This is good news to me!

You are welcome! The have PV panels for about $6/watt.
They built a Frys in my hometown of Atlanta and I have never seen anything like it! Well, maybe the IKEA... Puts new meaning in the term Big Box Store.
The cashiers at Frys work on commission so you would probably find that the lines move a lot faster!!!
Cheers, Jeff

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Josh Hill (in rq4lu1dam72m2p520o9b8q2tq7citvckas@4ax.com) said:
| On 8 Feb 2006 11:04:48 -0800, "ghostwriter" | wrote: | || The simple fact is that the profit margins were not good enough || compared to fossil fuels to make any serious players interested. || There exists no true mass production facility for solar panels. || The production facilities that are around are small by industrial || standards. I remember reading a report (DOE i seem to recall) that || suggested that a major facility with a dedicated glass works || attached could produce solar panels in the $1watt range installed, || assuming a 10% profit. Thats from memory so YMMV. 10% is not a || great profit margin but other industries manage on it. Assuming a || 10% time value of money that means a end user cost of $0.05Kwh. | || The technology exists but capital on the scale needed does not. And || until prices on energy go even higher I dont see it becoming || available. | | If that's true it would certainly be competitive in some | applications, e.g., those that reduce peak demand during air | conditioning season. Beyond that, I think you have to take into | account the cost and inefficiency of batteries or the | infrastructure and staffing that provide power on cloudy days. Wind | has the same problem -- wind power is already in the $0.05/kWh | range, which after subsidies and indirect costs is probably | competitive even with coal, but it doesn't always blow, and storage | would be expensive and inefficient . . . I've read proposals to tie | widely separated wind farms together, but I'm not sure if that | would be price effective given grid losses.
Does it really need to be so binary? A number of municipalities have begun using wind generators to "buy down" the cost of electricity provided to their communities. The town of Waverly (population 10,000) in northeastern Iowa uses coal, hydro, and wind (as well as natural gas and/or diesel to handle peak loads).
One of the more interesting aspects of the Waverly scenario (from the ICLEI web page at http://www.greenpowergovs.org/wind/Waverly%20case%20study.html, with some additional info at http://www.waverlyia.com/):
"... consumer electricity rates have consistently gone down since 1992, even with the purchase of three wind turbines. The cost of wind generation is currently the lowest cost source of new energy available to WL&P."
From what I've heard, Waverly doesn't even try to store the energy - they use whatever wind power is available to reduce consumption of more expensive fuels.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

It occurs to me that you could get higher effiiciency if the windmill was a mechanically mated pump assembly rather than a generator that fed a motor that turned a pump. Given a 85% return on electrical energy and a 85% efficient pump and a 85% efficient generator the use of a mechanical system would put out 117% more power than a wind turbine does now. That makes sense since you can use larger more efficient turbine on the discharge of a pond than you can use on a single windmill. That would reduce capital outlay for a large system substantially and make maintance a lot more simple. The land use would be much larger and might create unique problems. But then the system would be sized for the average and the production peaks and valleys could be smoothed out. A lot more incrementally upgradable as well.
The same concept could work for tidal and wave power as well, in fact given a little engineering the same pump assembly might fit all three systems. Line the coast with windmills and wave bouys that would fill huge saltwater resevoirs.
Ghostwriter

ghostwriter wrote:

I did some more looking around and it seems that the average energy bill (both natural gas and electric) is about $250 per month. That has a value of about $35K at 7.5% for 30years. It seems to me that getting off grid tends to cost right about that much. Although the average homeowner might not be able to handle the restrictions that offgrid requires.

What happens is: you plan the conversion; you decide $35000 is too much; you go on a serious energy conservation program; you get costs down to $20000 and decide it's worthwhile.
Of course, you've now got your monthly electricity bill down to about $150/mo :-)
When you're currently connected to the grid, going off-grid will rarely make sense. Going to a grid-tie system, might. otoh, when you don't have the grid to begin with, bringing it in is often not a paying proposition. You don't have to be very far off-grid at all to get the cost of running poles and lines above the cost of installing your own power. -- derek

Josh Hill wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:08:01 GMT, "SJC" wrote:
"daestrom" wrote in message
"Johnny" wrote in message
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message JSF (in ruednVDxh5mN8HTeRVn-gw@comcast.com) said:
| Over the years there has been several so called breakthroughs on | mass producing solar cells lowering the cost to one 1/4 to 1/ 6 of | the cost of standard cells. | Well where are they?
In my opinion it has to do with the centralized power authorities being addicted to sapping the masses for their personal enrichment.
Yeah, right. Those darn 'centralized power authorities' keep making that electricity so cheaply, that PV panels have a hard time being economical. They are obviously deliberately underpricing those billion dollar nuc plants, and such just to keep the PV market stifled.

Yes, they are indeed underpricing the nuclear produced power. Not to mention the coal & oil. Through various subsidies.

I have heard that the federal government pays some $10B a year for nuclear power plant insurance. This would be like a subsidy paid for by all the taxpayers but benefiting only the industry and those that use that power.
I haven't seen that figure, but IIRC the Federal Government does insure the nuclear power industry and that certainly constitutes a subsidy. We also have to take into account the costs of waste disposal and storage, security, anti-terrorism measures, and the like.
Unfortunately, even when that's taken into account, I don't think solar electricity is competitive yet, except in remote off-grid locations where it would be more expensive to run a power line.

It doesn't have to be remote - I'm 0.5km from the end of the power line. With costs of $CDN10,000 - $15,000 to bring in the line, it was a no-brainer to go off-grid. Power lines cost at least $1000/pole, with at most 100m between poles. Price goes up depending on requirements for easements and terrain.
I would bet anyone more than a mile from the grid could save money generating their own power, and many people closer to the grid can make it work. -- derek