The current issue of Scientific American (Jan. 08) provides a comprehensive analysis of a plan to provide 69% of all our electricity and 35% of all US energy use through solar power generation by 2050. At costs comparable to traditional energy sources and with technology that is already available. It requires a large initial investment to scale up production and provide industry incentives of $420 Bil - less than we have spent so far on direct costs for the Iraq war.
It also requires a land area of 30,000 sq miles, (300 x 100 mi), which is less than 1/8th of the available and suitable land in the Southwest US. While that area seems like a lot, it is less per Gigawatt than coal takes when the land for mining is taken into account, not to mention the environmental destruction associated with coal. Excess solar power for nightime use is stored as compressed air in underground caverns silmilar to what is used for natural gas storage all over the US already.
I like Arnold S. proposal to put solar panels on the roofs of whole neighborhoods in southern California and turn cities into electricity producers.
maddyfish
01-01-08, 07:43 PM
Whats the enviromental heat trade off for that much space devited to solar panels?
mike
01-01-08, 07:48 PM
Whats the enviromental heat trade off for that much space devited to solar panels?
Good question. I have often wondered about that myself.
Do solar panels absorb solar energy thus reducing the heat that would normally be added to our atmosphere? I wonder, for example, if buildings that have solar panels on them are naturally cooler than buildings with traditional roofing material because the solar energy is converted to electricity rather than heat that is absorbed into the roof.
mtnroads
01-01-08, 07:48 PM
Whats the enviromental heat trade off for that much space devited to solar panels?
Well, we're talking about desert here - sand and rock and dirt. It would seem to be a perfect use for it, and in fact the panels would provide some shading/reflectance that could provide a slight cooling benefit, since the planet is currently absorbing slightly more heat than it emits in radiation.
mtnroads
01-01-08, 07:55 PM
Good question. I have often wondered about that myself.
Do solar panels absorb solar energy thus reducing the heat that would normally be added to our atmosphere? I wonder, for example, if buildings that have solar panels on them are naturally cooler than buildings with traditional roofing material because the solar energy is converted to electricity rather than heat that is absorbed into the roof.
Yes they absorb solar energy and provide shading, so the house would be slightly cooler as long as there is an airspace between the panel and the roof surface.
mike
01-01-08, 08:02 PM
Yes they absorb solar energy and provide shading, so the house would be slightly cooler as long as there is an airspace between the panel and the roof surface.
So, solar paneled roofs used to power air conditioners for the building would be a double-plus; reduced heat absorbtion through the roof and using the roof space for powering a cooling system. That's neat.
I suppose in fact, there are more efficient ways to cool a building like using solar evaporators. I remember seeing the most simple cooling systems on islands in the south pacific that just had water sprinklers on the sheet metal roofs. The sun was so God-awful hot that by the time the water slid down the roof, most of it evaporated before it hit the gutters. I don't know how effective they were in practice, but it must have worked to some extent.
mtnroads
01-01-08, 08:11 PM
Evaporative cooling on a large surface area works pretty well - that's why we cool down when we sweat. And swamp coolers are more efficient than regular A/C (energy-wise) as long as it is a fairly dry climate. But you would not want to power regular A/C with solar panels - takes way too much juice to do that. Cooling fans like you mention, both inside and attic fans, automated window and shading to block solar gain and catch breezes all work pretty well. One of the biggest efficiency gains in a sunny/warm climate is a simple attic fan powered by a solar panel for summer use
Roody
01-01-08, 08:34 PM
This sounds like one of several good plans for retooling the country's pathetic energy infrastructure. Why can't we study all the plans, select the best one, and begin implementing it within 5 years?
This would make a great legacy for the next president, whoever he/she might be? Teddy Roosevelt will always be remembered for the Panama Canal and FDR for the Tennessee Valley Administration. Our 44th President should be remembered for ending both global warming and dependence on foreign energy. There is nothing this country could do right now that would be a better investment for the future.
maddyfish
01-01-08, 08:40 PM
Yes they absorb solar energy and provide shading, so the house would be slightly cooler as long as there is an airspace between the panel and the roof surface.
So the land where these would be in use would be cooler than it normally is?
Would there be any way to do this, that didn't involve severely damaging the desert enviroment? In other words, are they off the ground enough that desert life would continue underneath? Or around them?
How would that many panels affect water drain off? I know it doesn't rain much there, but when it does would the flash floods be better or worse than they are now?
Roody
01-01-08, 08:52 PM
So the land where these would be in use would be cooler than it normally is?
Would there be any way to do this, that didn't involve severely damaging the desert enviroment? In other words, are they off the ground enough that desert life would continue underneath? Or around them?
How would that many panels affect water drain off? I know it doesn't rain much there, but when it does would the flash floods be better or worse than they are now?
I think it would totally **** up the desert environment. But it would be good for all the other environments.
Overall, I doubt if the world would be any hotter or cooler. Isn't that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? But I suppose the local area could be affected.
mtnroads
01-01-08, 09:02 PM
I think it's an awesome plan, and as you state, we need to get going on something that will work. Obviously this would need some further analysis but the basic concept seems sound and is exciting. Our planet is of course run by solar energy for the most part - the oceans, climate, even fossil fuels are the stored output of millions of years of solar energy, being used up in a few short centuries.
mtnroads
01-01-08, 09:06 PM
As far as f-ing up the desert environment - it may be that it would, or it may be possible to design in such a way that the impact is minimal. But the desert contains much less biodiversity than the rainforest and temperate zones which are currently at high risk due to global warming, so it might be a reasonable trade-off. We are currently losing over 3000 species/yr due to climate change and that can only go so far before the Earth loses the bio-complexity which maintains stability.
CrimsonEclipse
01-02-08, 12:11 AM
Earth sheltered home + solar = $$$
CE
markjenn
01-02-08, 12:49 AM
30,000 square miles! While I'm all for renewable energy, that's a gigantic area, about the size of all of South Carolina.
I'd much prefer that we solar panel existing developed land than to condemn such a large new land area. People think of the desert SW as a wasteland, but it has it's own ecosystems and doesn't need to be ravaged by industrial development like this. It's not just the panels, but the roads to access them, the warehouses to supply the spare parts, the people to maintain the systems.
Conservation is still the low-hanging fruit. I can't see condeming thousands of square miles of the desert to produce electricity cheap enough to light up empy skyscrapers at night.
- Mark
ChipSeal
01-02-08, 01:56 AM
As far as f-ing up the desert environment - it may be that it would, or it may be possible to design in such a way that the impact is minimal. But the desert contains much less biodiversity than the rainforest and temperate zones which are currently at high risk due to global warming, so it might be a reasonable trade-off. We are currently losing over 3000 species/yr due to climate change and that can only go so far before the Earth loses the bio-complexity which maintains stability.
Yeah right! :rolleyes: Name three species that went extinct in 2007.
This is more fantasy from computer models. You need to avoid the the hysterical claims of the Earth First! crowd. It makes you look foolish. :p
swwhite
01-02-08, 01:50 PM
Yeah right! :rolleyes: Name three species that went extinct in 2007.
I don't know three, but I can start off with the Yangtze River dolphin. I believe that was declared extinct in 2007.
CrimsonEclipse
01-02-08, 02:45 PM
I don't know three, but I can start off with the Yangtze River dolphin. I believe that was declared extinct in 2007.
2999 to go...
CE
swwhite
01-02-08, 03:48 PM
2999 to go...
CE
OK, you got me interested.
Begonia eiromischa (whatever that is). I don't know of the following link will work.
I wonder why we need such massive efforts? Wouldn't we be better off if solar panel were distributed rather than centralized? If we had one on the roof, wouldn't that be better than transporting the energy across a state or continent?
I ran into this proposal
http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?p=edu_solution where Ed Begley Jr talks about a plan to finance solar panels for private homes. To my mind, this type of deal has got to happen... it's just a matter of when.
gerv
01-02-08, 08:04 PM
Yeah right! :rolleyes: Name three species that went extinct in 2007.
This is more fantasy from computer models. You need to avoid the the hysterical claims of the Earth First! crowd. It makes you look foolish. :p
If you don't think something very serious is happening, I think you are seriously misinformed.
A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes have disappeared from the world's oceans in the past half century, the devastating result of industrial fishing.
The study, which took 10 years to complete and was published in the international journal Nature this week, paints a grim picture of the Earth's current populations of such species as sharks, swordfish, tuna and marlin.
The authors used data going back 47 years from nine oceanic and four continental shelf systems, ranging from the tropics to the Antarctic. Whether off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, or in the Gulf of Thailand, the findings were dire, according to the authors.
"I think the point is there is nowhere left in the ocean not overfished," said Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia and lead author of the study.
If you think this information is coming from an "Earth First!" source, you should try asking the hundreds of thousands of unemployed fishermen about this.
mtnroads
01-02-08, 08:56 PM
I wonder why we need such massive efforts? Wouldn't we be better off if solar panel were distributed rather than centralized? If we had one on the roof, wouldn't that be better than transporting the energy across a state or continent?
I ran into this proposal
http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?p=edu_solution where Ed Begley Jr talks about a plan to finance solar panels for private homes. To my mind, this type of deal has got to happen... it's just a matter of when.
That looks interesting - thanks for the link. the concept is sound but solar PV is not quite as simple as the cell phone model that was mentioned in the video. There are installation constraints, orientation, shading from trees, etc. Plus how does it work if the person moves or sells the home? Those are just a few questions I would have, but I think the idea is a good one. Anything to get around the barrier of high initial capital cost helps.
As far as why centralized over de-centralized solar generation, it is because there are tremendous cost efficiencies with scale - in cost per watt, installation, maintenance, etc. Putting it in a location of consistently high daily solar insolation eliminates the siting variables. And the size of the project would stimulate significant capital investment which would hopefully drive the cost/watt down.
Still, ultimately I think we will need both centralized and decentralized solar, combined with wind where it is viable, geothermal, etc. The important lesson is that our needs can be met with renewables and there are alternatives to the destructive path of continued fossil fuel use.
dr. nate
01-02-08, 10:27 PM
If you impact one area, your going to have an effect that is felt in other areas. So if you change the weather over AZ, then you can have a negative effect on the weather in TX.
I remember reading that it only takes a few panels to power a house, and several home builders have done the leg work to find out how it would impact everything if we were to add panels to new homes being built. The main reason it hasn't gotten started is the extra cost. Most Americans don't buy a house they can truly afford, they buy what they can afford if they use every penny.
When I build my next home, I plan to add a few panels.
-Nate
mtnroads
01-02-08, 10:50 PM
It takes more than a few panels to power the average US home - more like 16-24 of the 160W panels, at about $1K ea. That doesn't include the cost of the inverters, cut-off switches, wiring, breakers, etc, or installation. Actually that would be for a modest size home in California, a temperate climate where the average home uses only 500kWh/mo (the national average is double that). This is why the cheapest solar is the solar you avoid having to install because you cut your usage through conservation first.
That's not to say that a small efficient cabin-size home that is well-designed couldn't do with a lot less, so in that scenario a half dozen might be enough, depending on location. Or just start small and add as you go. It's all good, as they say.
ChipSeal
01-03-08, 07:32 AM
Solar panels are expensive still, and so they are competitive where the alternative is also expensive: Remote locations.
The cost of connecting to the grid in remote locations, or using on site generators like diesel, make solar competitive, and solar has deep penetration into those markets.
Solar panels produce electricity in the range of $.30-.35 per unit of energy compared to the $.04-.07 cost off the grid. Break even return on investment with grid hookups available is in the 15-20 year range. In some markets where tiered pricing is imposed, smaller solar systems work great and can be cost effective by pushing your usage off the expensive brackets.
Right now, even with large government subsidies available in the USA, the return on investment is too low to make them widely acceptable. Either grid delivered power has to become more expensive, or the capital cost of such systems needs to come down for the economics to work.
For some reason Japan is installing huge amounts of residential solar panels. I am not yet sure why.
Edit: I found a disturbing story- http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/19/news/solar121907.txt
ChipSeal
01-03-08, 07:59 AM
I did some research and I turned up this:
"Solar is on its feet, but it's not exactly off and running. Today's solar boom still depends on government assistance. Solar panels are at the point of making economic sense on their own, but just barely.
If a salesman came to your door and said "I have a way you won't have to pay electric bills," you'd say "great."
But how much are the solar panels? About $20,000 dollars.
How long would it take to make that money back? In Japan, maybe 20 years.
Yukawa says the sales pitch is still awkward. The price of solar panels still needs to come down by half before homeowners and builders really take the plunge to buy."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14031247
So I still don't understand the reason for the boom in Japan. :o
mtnroads
01-03-08, 08:32 AM
It could be that they are anticipating considerably higher oil prices and do not want to be dependent on other countries as the bidding goes up since they lack fossil fuel resources of their own. Same reason some people will make the investment in solar if they think electricity prices are going to climb. BTW, I keep seeing comparison numbers used of .05 for grid power but we have been over .10 for a long time most places in California. Makes the payback period a lot shorter, in fact with incentives it is often 7-10 years.
ChipSeal
01-03-08, 10:25 AM
It could be that they are anticipating considerably higher oil prices and do not want to be dependent on other countries as the bidding goes up since they lack fossil fuel resources of their own.
According to the NPR story cited above, the Japanese consumers are facing a 20 year payback. Again, the individuals economic motivation is mysterious to me. I understand the governments motivation just fine.
I keep seeing comparison numbers used of .05 for grid power but we have been over .10 for a long time most places in California. Makes the payback period a lot shorter, in fact with incentives it is often 7-10 years.
"Across the region, Offord and others like him benefit from two subsidies that cut solar power's cost. The retired teacher will get a tax break from the federal government and a rebate from the state. Together, the subsidies cut the cost of Offord's $16,000 system by about $6,000.
"It'll never pay for itself, but the sun is there, and it's free," Offord said. "I might as well use it."
Charles Roberts, an Ocean Beach architect who installed solar panels on his roof, previously paid $20 to $60 for his monthly electricity bills. Since the installation, he has expanded his home and added two residents. Despite the increased demand, he doesn't pay any more than $5 a month. He expects the system to pay for itself within 15 years.
"Realistically, solar is still a costly thing," Roberts said. "The payback on it at today's energy prices is a long time. Most people who purely look at it from that point of view don't install it." -from the disturbing article cited above.
How long will you own your home? How much higher would energy prices have to rise to significantly shorten break-even? How much sooner will break-even be when the value added to the home is figured in- if any?
As it stands now, one must be motivated by more than pure economic considerations to choose solar energy. I am not objecting. I wish for others to spend their own money as they want. But solar energy's high up front cost have to crowd out lots of other desires- making the potential buyers a rather small slice of our population.
The break-even will have to be 3-5 years, without subsidies, for solar energy panels to become commonplace. As you point out, if this will be achieved, it will likely be a combination of lower capital costs for a system and higher grid supplied costs.
atman
01-03-08, 10:38 AM
If I were in an industrialized nation that imports 95 percent of its power
I would want solar panels too.
Assuming I could afford them.
Solar Panels: 1.8 Million Yen. Installation etc: at least 1 Million Yen. Having power when Russia stops shipping oil and Chinese coal costs too much to keep all the plants running?
Priceless.
Platy
01-03-08, 11:56 AM
So I still don't understand the reason for the boom in Japan. :o
I bet one difference is interest rates. As of today:
10-year Japanese government bonds: 1.48%
10-year US treasury bonds: 3.92%
That means if you have the yen to invest, a capital investment that pays for itself in 20 years is a much better deal than buying Japanese government bonds, which would earn the same return over about a 50 year period.
Roody
01-03-08, 01:22 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that the real innovations needed are economic rather than technical. I thought one excerpt from the article said it well:
Although $420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts.
An additional factor is that we would be spared the substantial costs of maintaining and upgrading the present energy system, which is antiquated and falling apart.
Roody
01-03-08, 01:23 PM
If I were in an industrialized nation that imports 95 percent of its power
Um...we are an industrial nation that imports 95 % of its power. At least, we soon will be if we continue as we are.
Roody
01-03-08, 02:46 PM
Good question. I have often wondered about that myself.
Do solar panels absorb solar energy thus reducing the heat that would normally be added to our atmosphere? I wonder, for example, if buildings that have solar panels on them are naturally cooler than buildings with traditional roofing material because the solar energy is converted to electricity rather than heat that is absorbed into the roof.
Heres a comment on this question from the article's author, on the sciam site (http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005617&start=30):
Local Climate. Two effects: the conversion of some light to electricity and its movement to a point of use; and a reduced albedo because modules don't reflect as much as the Earth's average albedo. Locally (in the desert), the two would partially offset (more sunlight stays on Earth, less heat produced from that sunlight); then the rest would be energy moved to another location. I think all in all, there would be some local heating.
gwd
01-07-08, 02:09 PM
It takes more than a few panels to power the average US home - more like 16-24 of the 160W panels, at about $1K ea. That doesn't include the cost of the inverters, cut-off switches, wiring, breakers, etc, or installation. Actually that would be for a modest size home in California, a temperate climate where the average home uses only 500kWh/mo (the national average is double that). This is why the cheapest solar is the solar you avoid having to install because you cut your usage through conservation first.
That's not to say that a small efficient cabin-size home that is well-designed couldn't do with a lot less, so in that scenario a half dozen might be enough, depending on location. Or just start small and add as you go. It's all good, as they say.
I stayed a few days in a solar powered home in Mexico. I was surprised at how little roof space the two solar panels took. We had fans, refrigerator, microwave, small freezer- we never ran out of ice for the margaritas. The little village was off the grid. Some of the neighbors augmented the solar panels with these small wind turbines but the house I stayed in only had the solar panels. If someone wanted to be an energy hog they could easily quadruple the number of panels and still have roof space for a solar water heater.
Platy
01-07-08, 06:57 PM
I stayed a few days in a solar powered home in Mexico. I was surprised at how little roof space the two solar panels took...
Solar can easily give you enough power if you don't need air conditioning or significant heating. The central plateau of Mexico has some of the mildest, most pleasant climate zones in the world. Where were you staying?
wahoonc
01-08-08, 03:41 AM
FWIW we are designing/contemplating a new home. Both passive and active solar are being considered as part of the energy mix. My goal is to get the grid power back down to a 50amp main, and be able to survive if the grid collapses. Cost is only a small part of the equation to us. We are looking at reducing our dependence on coal fired plants, and the possibility of power increases as peak oil becomes more of a reality.
Aaron:)
CrimsonEclipse
01-08-08, 07:35 AM
Is a 50 amp main line cheaper to install to a new house?
CE
gwd
01-08-08, 12:27 PM
Where were you staying?
Cabo Pulmo.
dynodonn
01-08-08, 12:40 PM
The break-even will have to be 3-5 years, without subsidies, for solar energy panels to become commonplace.
That's about the time frame I look at before I purchase most products, with my electrical usage, solar panel pay back time frame if I was to purchase is at 30 to 40 years even with subsidies.
ChipSeal
01-08-08, 12:53 PM
FWIW we are designing/contemplating a new home. Both passive and active solar are being considered as part of the energy mix. My goal is to get the grid power back down to a 50amp main, and be able to survive if the grid collapses. Cost is only a small part of the equation to us. We are looking at reducing our dependence on coal fired plants, and the possibility of power increases as peak oil becomes more of a reality. Aaron:)
That is exciting, Aaron!:) Best wishes with that project!
Going solar with a new home is better/cheaper than a retrofit install, so the capital outlay is reduced.
Those of us who lament the high cost of the technology have much to be grateful to folks like you! Early adopters pave the way for economies of scale. We need the folks with the passionate idealism and vision necessary to bridge the gap between pure economic considerations and the present state of the art.
Tailwinds! BIZ
bizzz111
01-08-08, 01:40 PM
it would be nice to see an integrated solution to housing and permitting enforcement for any new housing development. Builders typically develop 5-20 acres at a time and these days can put as many as 12 homes to an acre. It would be nice for the cities to require (in addition to all the infrastructure to the surrounding communities that never gets done):
1) thick as hell walls would be required, at least twice as thick as required today (e.g. double walls).
2)geothermal heat pump systems would be required, which could be shared between all the houses.
3) every house would have solar panels and mini-wind turbines installed.
4) every house would have a water cistern that would catch rainwater from the roof, filter it and pump it back to the toilets and washing machine (as well as the outdoor spigots).
Most of that stuff is fairly hard and expensive to retrofit an existing house, but there's absolutely no reason why every new house being built in america today can't meet these specifications. Instead the developers are just slapping up the ****ty mcmansions as fast as they can with little to no regard to the environment, or the health of the people buying the house. It would take the government to bring them in line, however it seems people would rather save $20-50k on the front end purchase of the house and gradually see it pissed away on energy bills than build it correctly the first time around.
Roody
01-08-08, 02:48 PM
it would be nice to see an integrated solution to housing and permitting enforcement for any new housing development. Builders typically develop 5-20 acres at a time and these days can put as many as 12 homes to an acre. It would be nice for the cities to require (in addition to all the infrastructure to the surrounding communities that never gets done):
1) thick as hell walls would be required, at least twice as thick as required today (e.g. double walls).
2)geothermal heat pump systems would be required, which could be shared between all the houses.
3) every house would have solar panels and mini-wind turbines installed.
4) every house would have a water cistern that would catch rainwater from the roof, filter it and pump it back to the toilets and washing machine (as well as the outdoor spigots).
Most of that stuff is fairly hard and expensive to retrofit an existing house, but there's absolutely no reason why every new house being built in america today can't meet these specifications. Instead the developers are just slapping up the ****ty mcmansions as fast as they can with little to no regard to the environment, or the health of the people buying the house. It would take the government to bring them in line, however it seems people would rather save $20-50k on the front end purchase of the house and gradually see it pissed away on energy bills than build it correctly the first time around.
These are great ideas and there's no excuse for not implementing them in the building code within the next couple years. :)
However, we should remember the the "half-life" for residential buildings is probably in excess of 50 years. By that, I mean that in 50 years at least half the houses built this year will still be in use. So tough energy standards on new construction is going to take a long time before it makes a dent in home energy use. If the predictions for global warming and peak oil are even close to accurate, that's too little and too late.
Steering us back on topic, the only solution that can make a real difference in a realistic time frame is to come up with clean energy produced in this country. In a hurry. The Scientific American plan has some drawbacks, but it is doable with existing technology, and with an economic investment that won't collapse the economy.
I think it's time to stop quibbling about penny-ante conservation efforts and attack the root of the problem. Like NOW!
wahoonc
01-08-08, 05:51 PM
Is a 50 amp main line cheaper to install to a new house?
CE
Basically...yes. That is all that houses built back in the 30's and 40's had for the most part.
Aaron:)
wahoonc
01-08-08, 05:58 PM
it would be nice to see an integrated solution to housing and permitting enforcement for any new housing development. Builders typically develop 5-20 acres at a time and these days can put as many as 12 homes to an acre. It would be nice for the cities to require (in addition to all the infrastructure to the surrounding communities that never gets done):
1) thick as hell walls would be required, at least twice as thick as required today (e.g. double walls).
2)geothermal heat pump systems would be required, which could be shared between all the houses.
3) every house would have solar panels and mini-wind turbines installed.
4) every house would have a water cistern that would catch rainwater from the roof, filter it and pump it back to the toilets and washing machine (as well as the outdoor spigots).
Most of that stuff is fairly hard and expensive to retrofit an existing house, but there's absolutely no reason why every new house being built in america today can't meet these specifications. Instead the developers are just slapping up the ****ty mcmansions as fast as they can with little to no regard to the environment, or the health of the people buying the house. It would take the government to bring them in line, however it seems people would rather save $20-50k on the front end purchase of the house and gradually see it pissed away on energy bills than build it correctly the first time around.
Good points! I lived in a couple of houses over the years that had interesting features. One in Huron, SD had a rainwater cistern in the basement that as far as I know provided ALL of the water for the house use. I would guess that house was built in the 30's. Another we lived in was in Sunset Harbour, FL, it was built in the late 20's and had a huge redwood water tank in the attic with a glass roof section over it, the tank was painted black....solar heated hot water:D, that house also had a catchment system too. Most of the older houses I lived in were built to take advantage of the natural order of things; faced to catch prevailing breezes, deep porch overhangs to shade the house from the southern sun, built out of heavy masonry and plaster to act as a thermal sink, well placed windows, doors and dormers to create a thermal chimney to draw cool air out of the basement, etc. It could be done today if they were interested, but all that appears to sell now is square footage, bonus rooms and location to whatever.
Aaron:)
mtnroads
01-08-08, 09:44 PM
That's about the time frame I look at before I purchase most products, with my electrical usage, solar panel pay back time frame if I was to purchase is at 30 to 40 years even with subsidies.
That doesn't sound right, unless you live in a state that has a low, flat (non-tiered) electric rate, you are heating with electricity, or you live in the northern latitudes. In most states that have tiered electric rates it is the bigger users that gain the most from solar since you are chopping off the most expensive usage first, even if you don't try to power the entire home.
If you have a good site or home orientation and your utility offers time-of-use rates you can gain even more by selling at the most expensive rate (summer afternoon when AC loads are highest) and buying in the morning and evening when rates drop. That is very common here in Calif when people work during the day and they don't come home until later, when power is cheaper.
If you have electric heat or live more north, a less expensive alternative might be solar hot water used to provide radiant heating. Most people don't realize that solar hot water panels capture far more btu's of energy than photovoltaic panels. This type of setup can be retrofitted to most homes with 4-5 hours of good sun exposure and is less sensitive than PV to occasional shading, cloudy skies, etc.
Elkhound
01-09-08, 01:10 PM
A lot of the useless, barren desert of the southwest is Indian Country. Building solar farms on the reservations would provide the tribes with a much-needed revenue stream.
noisebeam
01-09-08, 02:07 PM
I think it is quite ignorant calling the southwest desert, even just parts of it, barren and useless or lacking diversity.
Seems to me the attitude is who cares if somewhere I don't live nor know anything about is destroyed if it make my life better.
(Not just you Elkhound, but I've seen similar opinions by others in this thread)