Going Electric: A new LEAF on life

I'm more than baffled by how the military budget has entered the fray on an article regarding solar panels on a house. And a Nissan Leaf.

None of us have any control over the military budget. We can and should vote and stay in touch with our elected officials, but that's indirect at best. So what does that have to do with anything regarding whether someone should or can afford solar panels?
Last I checked this was a site dedicated to Prii, and by some virtue, efficient living.

 

Exactly. As if pollution is a value added component

 

Pres Obama cannot help being a humanitarian -- it is his nature, although it is once again in conflict with American hypocrisy that demands that only people who serve US interests have intrinsic value.

More abstractly, chemical warfare has some of the characteristics of nuclear arms: rapid, far ranging changes in geo-political power seem possible. A regional war might be one chemical attack on Israel by Assad away. This is why the western military powers are not opposed to a strike.


Business loves political stability. Syria increases the risk, even without considering chemical weapons, of destabilizing the middle-east. That would lead to higher costs for Americans (oh oh) or shortages (pre-emptive WAR!!!).

I was trying to remember if Iraqi oil flows through Syrian pipelines. It might, or the pipeline might be a little further north in Turkey. Either way, where oil goes, the American military is not far behind.

 

You really don't get it? If we developed solar (and other renewables) .... and spent even 1/4 of our (wasted) military budget on mass transit development - we wouldn't HAVE to be worrying about the other side of the world. But as it is, a paradigm shift to clean energy and mass transit would destroy the wealth of those in control of petrodollars. Or maybe you didn't realize that the top 1% of the wealthy folks control almost 1/2 of the nation's wealth. Only in a very tiny world can someone truly not understand that these dynamics (petrodollars v renewables & mass transit) are diametrically opposing interests to the super wealthy.

.

 

OMG. I'm sure you felt the same about Bush.

Again, this is a thread about solar panels in HI.

I'm guessing the correlation is President Obama is Hawaiian?

 

Yeah I don't. So I'm guessing you've been holding us back from this? Why can't you stop spending all that money on the military right now and start focusing on education and infrastructure?? Stop spending on military. Make the right choice.

 

Is Chuck Hegal even less competent to run the DOD than Rummy? Talk among yourselves.
Donald Rumsfeld Supports Chuck Hagel « Public Intelligence Blog

In the mean time back to solar and hawaii,

Why Hawaii Just Became An Even Better Market For Solar - Forbes

Gasoline is also very expensive in Hawaii, and the roads and weather give plug-ins much longer than epa electric range. Plug-ins plus solar are a natural for home owners in hawaii.

 

I'm glad for them. Like I said originally, the majority of Americans dont have those options in their states. Hopefully solar will come down so we can all enjoy. One step at a time.

 

ok ... I'll talk solar only. Hawaii. most southern state. That puts the sun / azimuth nice & high. See wiki solar map:



When it comes to near right angle / mid day sunshine, they're up there with Texas, AZ, & New Mexico because HI is almost as far south as Mexico City. There. I ignored all the inextricably linked issues.

.

 

When you combine that solar map, with the price of electricity, california, Arizona, Nevada and hawaii make the most sense. Texas has excellent solar, but it is in west texas, away from the population. That along with cheap wind makes solar less appealing, but still good in the state as prices go down, and the grid is built up to move more power from west to central and east texas.

Solar Power By State | Solar Rankings By State


Then you look at that and go, why is california after new jersey?

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/25/solar-power-by-state-solar-rankings-by-state/#BLTbVGUdSj773Lgv.99

 

I'll throw in my $.02. Our situation in PA is similar to that described by OP— we have 33 panels, which supply all our electricity, plus 10,000 miles on our EV (Think City), plus we sell a bit back to the power company. They payback time on our PV is about ten years.

For numerous reasons we are opposed to what we feel is the U.S.' horrendous military industry and are consciously opposed to paying for that system. Until the Peace Tax Fund becomes an option the federal tax credit on our solar array as well as our EV have allowed us to move our tax dollars from supporting a system of death to doing something good for the long haul. Your opinion may vary, but I'm simply describing how the pieces of this puzzle fit together and make sense/cents for us.

PA P

 

I agree with most of your point. But dam it, not with all of it.
PV solar will mostly be junk in 25-30 years while a good hydro facility will last well over 100 years, maybe 200 years or more. The Hoover dam, if they would have poured the concrete all at once would have taken 125 years to completely cure. Incremental pouring and cooling with refridgerant sped it up...after 75 years it is probably up to about full strength now. Sure, it requires maintenance (mostly to prevent clogging on the inlets), but it provides 4.2 B kwh of power each year. Even some of it at night.

I'm all for solar. But, IMO, $30K spent for PV solar would be better spent on $10K for solar thermal (solarium) $10K PV solar and $10K in insulation and other home improvements reducing electricity needs (better appliances, lighting, etc.)

Mike

 

With the level of lake Mead dropping, the Hoover Dam's output won't stay up there for ever. Plus, there is simply not many places left for hydropower. Assuming the environmental damage acceptable.

 

I found conservation to be much less expensive than PV, but YMMV. Tax carbon, and let people find the cheapest alternative for their personal circumstance. For the past 4 months, my home has averaged consumption of 3.4 kWh/day. Nothing fancy, just a mixture of conservation; electricity -> natural gas; and natural gas -> solar (windows).

As for solar thermal -- my experience is that windows for heating were a great deal, solar hot water not so much. It worked out this way because plumbers are expensive and I live in a winter climate. I also found it much easier to conserve hot water than convince my wife to set the thermostat below 64F

 

I agree... (do you mean conservation or efficiency?)

I'm down to about 5-6 kwh/day except when I charge my PIP a few times per week.

I have a south facing solarium patio that provides about 1/2 to 2/3rds of my heat...my NG bill for hot water is so low that it makes no sense to have solar. I insulated all the pipes I could get to and keep the temp set low...maybe 4-5 therms/month. The building codes should have required the $30 of pipe insulation (I could only get to ~75% of it).

Mike

 

Both, if by conservation you mean the limited sense of using less of whatever is there.

My experience with hot water probably mirrors yours. Once we

• stopped washing clothes in heated water
• changed the shower to a low(er) flow faucet
• replaced the electric heating with NG
• maintained some discipline in hot water use in the shower

the residual energy use for hot water dropped to about 3 - 5 therms a month these past 4 months. I could drop it another 30-50% by installing a $400 heat recovery pipe, which I may do if I see a spike in the winter.

 

Just about all the good hydro is taken, that means you will likely cause large amounts of environmental damage as the chinese have found with new large hydro projects. Definitely good in many of the established locations.

With the decreased cost of solar PV in the US and the price of natural gas, solar thermal no longer makes sense in the US except to heat swimming pools. PV to heat pumps or natural gas heating is much better than active solar heating. For hot water heating, pv is iikely fine for electric, the load is probably quite low. This simplifies a solar install and makes maintenance lower. These things might not be the same outside the US. If natural gas is available, and you can get more of your use of solar to the grid, it may make sense to do natural gas hot water heating, and put the extra solar electricity on the grid.

Now you said solarium, which would be passive solar, or green building. If that is an option, usually only on new construction, that is definitely better than PV I would assume before solar was tried to be used to heat or air condition a home, efficiency - efficient appliances and insulation, would be tried. My local utility requires an energy audit for them to pay the extra solar PV subsidies.

We have a project to monitor smart grid/PV/plug-in use in a local neighborhood built when the airport moved. This has federal, state, and local subsidies, for purchasing plug-ins, PV, etc. Participants agree to be monitored as part of the program. Meters are read every 15 seconds, and home owners can see instant by instant readings from their homes, so for instance if your in the office you can decide to turn down the air conditioning, and see instantly what the changed load is. These homes have both south and west facing solar panels. The utility has found the west facing ones help with grid management more than the south facing, as these provide more of their power with peak loads. GM has just creasted an app for the volt, so that the utility can slow down or speed up charging based on grid requirements, but that part of the test hasn't started yet.

 

I am in the Silicon Valley, let me stop you there.

Obama had to pay for his election through decisions with money paid for by Silicon Valley CEO and VCs.

He was trying (and still is) to give away more H1b Visas to hire cheap labors while Americans with high incomes are unemployed (with the right skill set, I might add). He had the balls to call out that H1b Visas were needed because there are no skilled workers in America.

A few months back, 150,000 H1b Visas were sold within a few hours of being available. That is 150,000 American jobs that could be used to reduce the unemployment rate.

He is not a humanitarian, he is a capitalist.... sold to the highest bidder in the President's office.

 

I agree...but I never proposed building new hydro. I was comparing longevity of PV to hydro.

I use 99% passive solar thermal for heating. It is quite efficient. (Sometimes I will turn on a fan...mainly because on cold sunny winter days it gets too hot to sit in the solarium and I need to circulate the air faster into the house.)

Sure...but much more capital intensive than passive thermal. I had no need to design to provide 100%. I got roughly 50-66% of my heating for almost zero extra cost...just smart design and layout of my patio. The extra cost was just for better double glased glass. It will easily last 30-50 years with ~zero additional maintenance. My current house has had this for 16 yrs. In my previous house I built about the same thing 29 yrs ago and it still works great (visited the new owners 3-4 yrs ago).

Nope...I added it to two existing homes. The first time I did 100% of the work myself (young, enthusiastic and poor). The second time I paid for installation and was embarassed by how cheap it was (I spent ~4 months of weekends...the pros did it in 2-3 days. But I did some portions much better -- designed to not need much caulking at the house interface, etc.)

I would assume before solar was tried to be used to heat or air condition a home, efficiency - efficient appliances and insulation, would be tried. My local utility requires an energy audit for them to pay the extra solar PV subsidies.

Note...I'm all in favor of PV solar. But the costs are still very high compared to other things you can do for residential use. Installation and inverter replacement costs are still high. Most solar leasing companies want you to have at least $150 - $200 montly bills to make it worth the installation. My bill is maybe $35 without the PIP...and now about $40 with. In my area a number of schools, hospitals etc have large PV arrays covering ideal roofs and parking lots. These are great because they got some economies of scale in the installation, got near ideal angle to the sun and can use some bigger inverters...and provide parking shade.

One other big advantage of passive solar thermal ...my forced air NG furnance has a 500-700 watt fan. Just to move the air on some days that I need just a little heat costs (relatively) a lot.

Mike

 

Well then lets just kill the hydro example as off topic shall we, since we can not invest solar money in hydro.

I've got nothing against passive solar, when you say solar thermal, many of us think of csp and solar water heaters, neither of which are good ideas for home owners without big pools

I don't quite understand what you are doing with passive solar. Did you build an enclosed patio, and go there when its cold? I am not saying you are wrong, but there is much I don't understand. In california if you have natural gas you don't use much energy for heating (or hawaii, Arizona, NM, TX). In most of the southwest the hvac bills go for airconditioning, and geothermal heat pumps can save a lot of energy. Please describe what you are proposing instead of solar. I do not want to disagree, I just don't understand.

That sounds like you don't really spend much on electricity. No one is asking you to put in pv. Some like hill use a lot more electricity than you and can get a loan. Just be happy you don't use much. I doubt anyone with only a $500/year electric bill is going to be interested in new solar unless they love the technology or are putting in a new roof. There are a lot of charges associated with just doing the thing, whether you are doing a 0.5kw system or a 20kw system.