I'm sorry, but I'm with the conservatives on this one. Requiring all homes to have solar power is a stupid idea. Period, end of sentence.
There is still no clear *permanent* facility in place to compensate solar operators based on the utility of their product. I'm all for subsidies and mandated compensation for generated power when the industry is young and needs help finding it's feet, /but/, it all needs to be done in a rational way. When subsidies are temporary the market will find its natural equilibrium when they go away. That may not be a point where home solar makes sense.
I don't see how this bill can possibly pass, even in California.
Yes, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't need that large a tank to get substantial storage anyhow.
Exactly how much tropical jungle has to be bull-dozed to get enough coconut oil to apply this treatment to half a billion houses globally?
Rainwater storage tanks are close to mandatory here. It's ancient and simple technology. Different plastics composition would apply to a heat storage tank, but it's not rocket surgery.
I'm sorry you're too dense to follow. Reducing electricity usage means first of all managing heating and cooling without using it. When you've done that, if you still had 1980's electrics, a battery would have to be huge to work and would not be viable. With modern lighting and electronics, it's possible to consider battery storage. Still pricey, but as grid electricity costs rise, it's getting close.
Notice that I said: "I would not have much of an issue with requiring solar power on new homes..." which means I somewhat like the idea, but I'm not so sure that when its finally written into law, it will still be a good thing. Quite likely, there were all kinds of riders and expensive details lurking in the fine print. For example, the proposed bill might exempt low income housing on the grounds that they would make the house unaffordable. Same with scaling the solar plant to the value of the new house. A 5kw solar array on a typical single family home would make sense. The same size array on a multi-million dollar mansion, would the proverbial drop in the bucket. I have no idea how the politicians will structure the requirements or divide up the spoils.
I don't see this proposal as an assistance program for the struggling industry. In reading what I could find on the proposal, it's suppose to help save the environment, make California less dependent on oil, and maybe make California some kind of leader in managing energy resources. It probably make a few companies in the business of supplying solar equipment and services rather wealthy, but that can easily be fixed with punitive taxes to discourage excessive wealth accumulation by the "wrong" people.
Hint: The next California gubernatorial election is in 2018. It's traditional to propose radical, sensational, and "progressive" ideas before the election to give the impression that the incumbent and his party are doing something useful.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
We'll, that's what you get when living in the fog belt. Mark Twain allegedly said: "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." Too bad he probably didn't say it:
Much better than mine, which was a summer vacation cabin to which I've added some additional rooms. The added parts are reasonably well insulated, but the older parts of the house have minimal insulation. I also have far too much glass in the walls and zero insulation on the roof. If I add insulation and remove some glass, it would cost me more than what an extra cord of firewood every winter is costing me. Except for the bathroom, I don't do gas or electric heat, so my PG&E bill would not be affected.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
No, you don't need 40,000 liters, but even 1,000 liters is equivalent to 250 gal. I have one of those in my basement of my other house. It takes up significant floor space. Why not use a fraction of the size and not have to change the heat pump to a commercial refrigeration unit?
Are you joking? Do you really know nothing about coconuts? The oil is from the nut, not the tree. It is a truly renewable resource. As to the half a billion number, I suppose you picked that at random? Not every climate would be suitable for this and it would be outfitted over decades.
New Your city uses wooden tanks on some buildings to hold water. I believe they have to rebuild them every 30 or 40 years. I suppose plastic would be fine, but the rest of the system is metal and water is not friendly with that without corrosion inhibitors like in your antifreeze in your engine.
Ok, if you are going to intentionally insult I have no interest in discussing this with you further.
I have no idea why you are talking about batteries. I think we are not in the same discussion.
That is not at all clear. Some time ago someone pointed out that there is a mismatch between peak demand and solar supply. Like wind power, solar is not dispatchable in that it can't be brought online when the sun is not shining. So clearly the utility of solar power is limited. Not only that but the supply of solar power has a clear mismatch with demand peaking mid-day while demand peaks later in the afternoon.
So where is the "sense" of *requiring* every home to have a solar array on its roof?
The part you are missing is that until the market has found a clear place for solar power, there is no bucket!
Of course it a huge boon for the solar industry. The benefits to the rest of us are much less clear. It will take time to find ways to weave solar power into our lives usefully. Until then we can encourage the growth of the industry, but mandating it is absurd.
What??? Who are the "wrong" people? Taxes are taxes. It would be incredibly wrong headed to encourage the growth of solar by subsidies and then discourage profits with a special tax. This could completely nullify the subsidy.
The key word there is "impression". The elections since 2000 have taught me a lot about democracy. Our founding fathers were right to suspect the ability of the common man to govern himself. The common man is no more able to thoughtfully govern than anyone else. The last US election proved that without a doubt. Tweet, tweet! How to win an election 140 characters at a time.
My understanding is adding insulation to an attic is very inexpensive relatively speaking. It can be some of the best spent money regarding ener gy."
True, but only because it is cheap to do. It really doesn't do much on the cooling season, though if you live in a climate like Cleveland it will save you on heating. It is better if you put it on the floor of the attic rathe r than up in the roof unless the area is used as living space.
But when it comes to this subject, do not listen to any contractor or comme rcial. Like the ones who sell the windows. They might have the best windows in the world but they do not install them right and what you got is like a hole all the way around. I know from personal experience. I also know how to install them right. The way most contractors around here do it you save nothing. If you have the storm windows you are better off not wasting the m oney.
This is another case of if you want something done right then do it yoursel f. Or have me do it but I don't travel for this type of shit. A contractor might not even take off the trim, which is required to put the insulation i n. We are talking alot of caulk and that expanding foam insulation.
In the attic, the insulation will help with the heating, but not so much wi th the cooling. Believe it or not it is a form of the greenhouse effect, th e heat cannot get out. What you need for cooling season is a good sized exh aust fan to pull the hot air out of there. The easiest way is an old furnac e blower, just point it out of anything that you can open. Don't blow it in to the chimney though or you could be sucking monoxide from your hot water tank. Not that it puts out CO now, but it might when the flue isn't right.
Another thing is to get all your wiring and plumbing done beforehand. That includes the vents for the rest of the house. Even if you don't want to add anything, if something goes wrong with that then your nice looking insulat ion is getting torn up.
Been there doe that, was in the business for a time but then got back into electronics. I would like to remodel again but the fact is I can't even rea d a tape measure. I used to find it satisfying when the customer was happy with the work. But you'll not find one like that now. Corporate interests.
Agreed. Just one problem. I don't have an attic. The inside ceiling is also the roof. 2x6 T&G knotty pine roofing with 1 layer of asphalt roll roofing. R=1.
There's not enough headroom to install an attic, so I have to build up. The science fiction plan of the day is to rip off the 22 year old roll roofing and expose the pine roofing. Build "boxes" from 2x6 lumber set on edge. Fill the boxes with whatever insulation is appropriate (probably foil backed urethane foam slabs) at R-7 per inch. Build a plywood roof on top of that. Seal with acrylic (Metacrylic) or silicone roofing goo. 900 sq-ft. I don't want to think about the cost. Payback on energy and firewood savings will probably start long after I'm dead.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
If you build a house in east-west direction and populate only the south side of the roof with solar panels, indeed it will have a production peak at local noon.
However, not all buildings are orientated east-west. If the house is north-south, on which side of the roof do you put the panels, on east or west side ? Knowing that the peak demand is in the afternoon, populate only the west side of the roof with panels.
If the house is oriented SE-NW, putting the panels on the SW side of the roof will have a peak around 15:00 local solar time. To adjust this with demand hours the meters are showing, you have to adjust for daylight saving time, as well as where you are within the time zone in east-west direction.
We just ripped the roof off our "new" facility. It will be plywood (for seismic stiffness) and then about 6" of rigid foamish insulation, then some modern fiberglass roofing stuff, then aluminum paint.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Increasing the production of coconut oil, above and beyond the amount available today, would require planting new plantations of coconut trees. That's no different than any crop, renewable or otherwise.
According to the Great Font of Dubious Knowledge (Wikipedia), coconuts are hard to establish and raise in dry climates; they require a great deal of water. Establishing new plantations in some areas has caused significant ecodamage (e.g. eliminating habitat for mangroves).
Diverting coconut oil production from current uses, to thermal-mass use, would probably have a significant impact elsewhere (it's a valuable product for many food and cosmetic uses)... the prices of these products would go up.
So, although the use of coconut oil as a phase-change heat absorber is certainly attractive, one must consider the whole cost of using it before deciding whether it's "green" or not. Again, that's no different than any other industrial process - you have to look at the whole picture.
My god you are dopey. I was considering not even responding, but...
What rate of renewal would be needed to maintain the housing industry, even if an initial roll-out was possible?
It's about the right order of magnitude for houses in temperate zones, where doing it might make sense.
Completely irrelevant, like yourself.
Engines have dissimilar bare metals in contact with coolant. Antifreeze and other things degrade to become corrosive - which is why they have to add anticorrosion additives in the first place.
Metal tanks with various enamel coatings (such as Colorbond) last for decades. We have plenty of experience here - tank water was and is absolutely critical to most of Australia being habitable.
Yes. Grid power is not going to go away overnight and solar is not going to be a 100% solution. We're probably going to be using both for a long time to come.
Assuming we are "encouraged" to install domestic solar power in California, it is most likely to be grid tied solar because it's the cheapest. I tried to answer your question about what to do about night time, when solar power is not available. The easy answer is to store the energy somewhere. I was wondering if it would be economical, so I did a back of the envelope estimate of what it would take to repurpose the Tesla PowerWall 2 to run my house at night at its present consumption levels. I had no idea what I would discover when I started but soon discovered that many of my assumptions and guesses had a huge effect on the cost of the battery system. My first run showed that using a Tesla PowerWall 2 was not economical by a factor of 5.5. Adjusting the parameters will have a large effect, but only by increasing utility power rates or drasticly decreasing battery costs, could a battery backup system be cost effective.
During the years between the current situation where we rely heavily on utility power, and the paradise proposed by forcing homeowners to invest in solar, will be a long transition period, during which time hybrid systems will be popular. That includes a case where homeowners run off the grid when the sun or battery backup are not available.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Let's see what happens if the USA goes 100% solar.
The area of the continental USA is 8 million km^2. The sun delivers at noon about 1 kW/m^2 power under ideal conditions. Average solar insolation across the USA is about 4 hrs. Efficiency of commodity solar panels is about 20%: How much electricity in kW-hr can we generate if cover the entire USA in solar panels?
Energy/day = 1 kW/m^2 * 4 hrs/day * 0.2 * 8*10^6km^2 * 1*10^6m^2/km^2 = 6.4*10^12 kW-hrs/day = 2.3*10^15 kW-hrs/year Actually, it's considerably less than that because of weather, deterioration of solar cells, temperature effects on solar panels, battery storage efficiency, etc. I'll be arbitrary and just drop the order of magnitude a notch to: 2.3*10^14 kW-hrs/year
According to the CIA, the USA consumes 3,913,000,000,000 kW-hr/year or 3.9*10^12 kW-hrs/year.
So, in order to supply all the energy needs of the USA using solar power, all we need to do is cover; 3.9*10^12 / 2.3*10^14 = 1.7% of the USA with solar panels. Do we have that much vacant land?
One problem. The power usage is 24 hrs/day, while the generation is an average of 5 hrs/day. In order to provide power when the sun isn't shining, much of the energy will need to be stored probably in batteries. Assuming 24x7 uniform power consumption and 100% battery efficiency, the size of the solar array will need to increase by: (24 - 5) / 5 = 3.8 times, making the area now: 1.7% * 3.8 = 6.5% of the continental USA land mass. I know we don't have that much vacant land.
Therefore, a 100% conversion to solar electric, with no change in consumption, is not feasible.
(Could someone check my arithmetic?)
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Sounds a bit low for low latitude annual figures). Since at low latitudes, the highest demand is in the summer, tilting the fixed panels for best production during summer would make sense. 4 hours is just +/-30 degree off-axis so due to cos(phi) losses, you still would get 87 % at +/- 2 hours. Six hours would be more realistic.
This is not a realistic assumption. The consumption varies according to the season and time of day. In some countries, the consumption is
10-30 % larger during the day than during the night. Thus, 10-30 % solar share can be implemented without much problems.
In low latitude countries, the consumption is largest during the simmer with best production opportunities.
The need for battery storage can be greatly reduced by building east-west power lines. The US has several time zones and pointing the solar panels east on the east coast and westwards on the west coast extends the illumination period.
Of course, the greenies might object building new HV pylons across the country :-)
100 % solar is unrealistic, but 100 % renewable might be usable in some countries. This requires hydropower during the night and there is a strong long distance (thousands of kilometers) lines in which case wind power is also feasible.
Sorry, your initial assumptions are so much off to make a decent analysis.
Sure. My biggest initial assumption, that is certainly wrong, was when I reduced the likely annual solar power production for the entire contintental USA by a factor of 10. That's HUGE and probably too large for estimating purposes. However, it might be realistic if I lump together all the possible downtime, weather problems, maintenance downtime, CME shutdown, loss of solar panel efficiency, power drop due to high temperatures, shadowing from adjacent objects, variations in atltitude, etc. Also, the 1kW-hr/m^2 solar irradiance figure is unrealistic averages more like 600 watt-hr/m^2. I also overstated the efficiency of solar panels somewhat to cover the range from very inefficient amorphous silicon to the new multi-layer cells.
I can fine tune the numbers to whatever preference you might have, but what I was interested is the order (power of 10) area in which the numbers would land. I think the 6.5% of the continental USA surface area for 100% solar is at least in the general ball park.
Incidentally, 35% of much of California's electricity is currently being supplies by various renewable sources (mostly solar): Of course, that goes to nearly zero percent when the sun goes down.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.