+1. Reducing demand (compared to a "typical" home) will be worth doing, once we've considered the price of the panels and (especially) the price for storage. Going off grid and relying entirely on solar can be extremely expensive in most areas unless you are very flexible in your power requirements, this is because you'll need a >lot< of battery capacity to get through an extended period of lack of good sunlight. But, incorporating even a small backup generator (fueled by propane, natural gas, diesel, or gasoline) for occasional use can significantly reduce the expense of the system by reducing the size of the battery capacity needed, and maybe the size of the array needed to keep things going during marginal production periods.For anything near what a 'typical' US household uses, it will be expensive. Very expensive. Lots of batteries that will need regular replacement and/or maintenance. Lots of panels.
Not for me.
I am trying to understand what material I should read to learn more about this and whether all systems on the market are the same or whether one is better than the other.
Not for me.
I am trying to understand what material I should read to learn more about this and whether all systems on the market are the same or whether one is better than the other.
ls99: Sounds as if you've got part time living pretty much figured out. There are many RV's with solar panels on the roof--used when they're boondocking (without electricity.)
I can see long term changes coming in home electrical usage when new technology comes into play.
$.04 KWH coal generation is still half our power in the U.S., and nuclear power is never going to be as much of our power as it is today. Natural gas is the new hot thing in electricity @ $.11 per KWH. And forget wind power @ $.26 per KWH, as they're using 10% of U.S. steel production just building those beymouths. And little of the U.S. has enough reliable wind to turn the props.
We'll see what the future holds. I'm just thankful to have medium-low electricity rates from TVA for now.
I do have a desulfator which brought them back to full capacity in a week.
If fossil-fuel energy is ever priced honestly (taking into account health/environmental costs) it'd be a lot more expensive. Not sure why we should forget wind power just because it uses a lot of steel - sounds kind of like a good economy-stimulating thing. And I question the "10% of US steel production" assertion: can you provide a reliable source ?$.04 KWH coal generation is still half our power in the U.S., and nuclear power is never going to be as much of our power as it is today. Natural gas is the new hot thing in electricity @ $.11 per KWH. And forget wind power @ $.26 per KWH, as they're using 10% of U.S. steel production just building those beymouths. And little of the U.S. has enough reliable wind to turn the props.
You are right. A better reason to forget about it is that it is among the most expensive, least useful/practical ways to generate electricity in the US. A niche player, and an expensive one, at best.Not sure why we should forget wind power just because it uses a lot of steel
You are right. A better reason to forget about it is that it is among the most expensive, least useful/practical ways to generate electricity in the US. A niche player, and an expensive one, at best.
And let's not forget all the dead birds from wind.
Another promising renewable energy source is ocean wave energy.
If fossil-fuel energy is ever priced honestly (taking into account health/environmental costs) it'd be a lot more expensive.
Yeah sure, compared to horses, fossil fuels probably better. I'm talking compared to renewables. Duh.I would think that most people would agree that the benefits of fossil fuel energy far outweigh the negatives. Here's just one example:
"By the late 1800’s London had over 50,000 horses moving cabs and buses every day. Each one produced 15 to 35 pounds of manure and 2 pints of urine daily. At the same time, New York had over 100,000 horses producing 2.5 million pounds of manure each day.
No one could figure out how to handle all this manure, and in 1894 the Times newspaper predicted based on the increase in population and horses at the time “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
Automobiles burning fossil fuel solved the problem.
Lighting would be easy enough using modern LEDs. I think the bigger challenge (and possible benefit) would be from maybe using an RV-style refrigerator/freezer so it could run on normally DC and even propane in a pinch (without the conversion losses of running the generator). A small backup propane furnace and even adsorptive AC (using propane) would complete the "big-ticket" items and help reduce the "emergency" load on a generator if the batteries run low. A DC well pump would be easy in theory, but might be hard to find in the real world.If I were going off-grid solar, I think I'd try to rig as much of my house to run on DC as possible, to avoid the power loss inherent in the inverter. You wouldn't have long wiring runs, so I think line losses would be minimal.
Aw, bless your heart.... the deliberately misleading word "carbon" when referring to the essential (for life to exist) and harmless trace gas CO2
"By the late 1800’s London had over 50,000 horses moving cabs and buses every day. Each one produced 15 to 35 pounds of manure and 2 pints of urine daily.