Energy East Causing Uproar

[TimG]

I am 7.5 kWh/day

Obviously consumption will vary. I have no reason to believe that my consumption is outside of the norm for a family.

[dre]

You are wrong to assume those buildings have enough space for 'off-grid' solar installations. Especially in northern latitudes because the space required increases as the latitude increases.

The system I speced out has 18 panels that are 3 foot by 5 foot. It only needs 270 Square Feet of roof. Almost all lowrise homes have 5-10 times the space required.

As I mentioned above, only a small percentage of detached homes have enough space that can be re-purposed for solar panels used for 'off-grid' operation.

Nope almost all of them do. Even if you lived in a tiny 1000 square foot house, youre roof area is about 1200 and about half of it gets good sun. So even in that tiny house you have twice to space you need.

Houses at higher latitudes DO pose a problem, but that problem is almost solved.

Black Silicon cells collect more UV, and Ultraviolet energy. They work well in diffused light, and high lattitudes and on cloudy days.

Researchers at Finland’s Aalto University have achieved a record-breaking 22.1% efficiency for a nanostructured silicon, or black, solar cell. They accomplished this by overlaying a thin, passivating film on the nanostructures by a process known as atomic layer deposition, and by integrating all of the metal contacts on the cell’s back side.

Perhaps the best part: Black solar cells work really well on cloudy days. “This is an advantage particularly in the north, where the sun shines from a low angle for a large part of the year,” said professor Hele Savin from Aalto University, who coordinated the study, in a statement. “We have demonstrated that in winter Helsinki, black cells generate considerably more electricity than traditional cells, even though both cells have identical efficiency values.”

They actually work BETTER in diffused light because solar cells are not as efficient once they get hot.

[Bonam]

You don't need a big home. Solar systems like the one I speced out could run on ANY lowrise building.

Yes, you can install solar panels on a lot of houses. But your post which I originally replied to specifically also mentioned wind turbines for and backup diesel generators, for areas with less reliable sunshine. Wind turbines are generally not allowed on any properties in cities (check zoning laws, homeowner association rules, etc). And diesel generators generally cannot be operated where they would be a nuisance to neighbors. So yes, a lot of houses can have solar and batteries, but without those wind and diesel generator backups they can't be taken off the grid year round in most areas.

I dont see why there would be huge increases in efficiency with solar due to centralization. A solar panel makes the same amount of power whether its on a farm or not.

Homeowners can only practically install standard silicon solar panels, up to ~16% efficiency. It is also usually impractical to place them on solar trackers, meaning they are not pointed directly at the Sun most of the time, further reducing efficiency. In contrast, a centralized installation can take advantage of solar concentrator systems. Specifically, a system of relatively cheap mirrors or lenses can focus light onto a small solar cell, at a concentration of up to several hundred times (100-500 sols). Because there is then much less solar cell area, you can use expensive multi-junction solar cells which, at 100-500 sols of irradiation and with proper cooling, can operate at almost 50% efficiency.

[dre]

I am 7.5 kWh/day

The average residential utlity customer in the US uses about 800 KWH per month.

[dre]

Yes, you can install solar panels on a lot of houses. But your post which I originally replied to specifically also mentioned wind turbines for and backup diesel generators, for areas with less reliable sunshine. Wind turbines are generally not allowed on any properties in cities (check zoning laws, homeowner association rules, etc). And diesel generators generally cannot be operated where they would be a nuisance to neighbors. So yes, a lot of houses can have solar and batteries, but without those wind and diesel generator backups they can't be taken off the grid year round in most areas.

Homeowners can only practically install standard silicon solar panels, up to ~16% efficiency. It is also usually impractical to place them on solar trackers, meaning they are not pointed directly at the Sun most of the time, further reducing efficiency. In contrast, a centralized installation can take advantage of solar concentrator systems. Specifically, a system of relatively cheap mirrors or lenses can focus light onto a small solar cell, at a concentration of up to several hundred times (100-500 sols). Because there is then much less solar cell area, you can use expensive multi-junction solar cells which, at 100-500 sols of irradiation and with proper cooling, can operate at almost 50% efficiency.

The diesel backup I recommended is quieter than a heat pump (used all over NA). And you could almost eliminate the noise entirely if you put it inside a little insulated structure about the size of a doghouse in the corner of your yard.

Homeowners can only practically install standard silicon solar panels, up to ~16% efficiency.

Mmmmm more like 19% at least for the first few years. In any case that doesn't matter, because the system I speced out works fine with the panels it ships with, and they only need 270 square feet of roof area.

Edited August 17, 2016 by dre

[Bonam]

The diesel backup I recommended is quieter than a heat pump (used all over NA). And you could almost eliminate the noise entirely if you put it inside a little insulated structure about the size of a doghouse in the corner of your yard.

Sure but it still emits diesel exhaust and in tight packed residential neighborhoods in cities you can bet a neighbor will complain, even if the operation of generators isn't prohibited by bylaw, neighborhood ordinance, or HOA rules to begin with.

[dre]

Sure but it still emits diesel exhaust and in tight packed residential neighborhoods in cities you can bet a neighbor will complain, even if the operation of generators isn't prohibited by bylaw, neighborhood ordinance, or HOA rules to begin with.

http://gens.lccdn.com/generaccorporate/media/library/content/all-products/generators/home-generators/generac-generators_home-backup_emission-warranty-11kw-below.pdf

The device I linked to has been inspected and approved by the EPA for use in the US. It meets stringent federal anti smog standards.

[Argus]

The question is oil or renewable energy.

Try to keep up with the technology, eh?!

.

We don't currently have the technology for renewable energy.

So the question is oil or shivering in the dark.

[Bonam]

http://gens.lccdn.com/generaccorporate/media/library/content/all-products/generators/home-generators/generac-generators_home-backup_emission-warranty-11kw-below.pdf

The device I linked to has been inspected and approved by the EPA for use in the US. It meets stringent federal anti smog standards.

Yes, and if I put it on my roof (I don't have a ground level yard, only a roof), then my neighbor, whose roof is directly adjacent to my roof (separated by only a 3 foot wall) would most certainly notice it and ask about it. And then, because they have a 3 year old kid, they would be worried about what kind of "toxins" it emits regardless of what some certificate might say. And then they would ask me to remove it. And then because having good relations with a neighbor is more important to me than running a generator, I would.

Yes, if you have a large single family lot, with hedges and fences enclosing a "quarter acre" yard, great, you can put that diesel generator there. If you live in a set of townhouses or clustered single family homes, good luck.

And that still doesn't address the point about the wind turbines. Running a diesel generator all winter long, at an efficiency 4x lower than what a centralized fossil fuel plant can achieve, is hardly environmentally friendly.

[dre]

Yes, if you have a large single family lot

Or ANY lot with ANY yard space. You are right though... installing this kind of situation for apartment or strata dwellers would be a problem. They probably wouldn't even let you.

But yeah... Im not claiming its a 100% solution in all cases. But it COULD replace the grid for most suburbs and rural areas, so that you only had to have a small grid for just for city centers, and less central plants.

Edited August 17, 2016 by dre

[dre]

We don't currently have the technology for renewable energy.

So the question is oil or shivering in the dark.

Yes we do... I speced out a system a few pages that that is relatively cheap and already available to consumers today.

[Bonam]

But yeah... Im not claiming its a 100% solution in all cases. But it COULD replace the grid for most suburbs and rural areas, so that you only had to have a small grid for just for city centers, and less central plants.

Yes, as I said, great in rural areas, and in some low density suburbs. However, rural dwellers are usually the ones with least capital on hand to install expensive new systems ($25k is expensive to most American rural dwellers, for sure). Further, the global trend is for greater population concentration in dense urban centers, so even if rural and some suburban areas had large scale deployment of off-grid solutions, the overall energy share of this segment would continue to drop and we'd still have to have solutions appropriate for the large and ever-growing urban populations.

[TimG]

The system I speced out has 18 panels that are 3 foot by 5 foot. It only needs 270 Square Feet of roof. Almost all lowrise homes have 5-10 times the space required.

Your math is wrong:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/solar-tools/residential-solar-calculator/

900kWh/month average household consumption in BC.

https://www.bchydro.com/search.html?q=What+is+the+average+power+usage+for+a+residential+customer?&qid=1429&ir_type=3

3.5 hour/day peak sunlight hours in Vancouver means you need a 11kW system.

That means you need at least 36 300W 3x5 panels or a 36 foot by 15 foot unobstructed south facing roof.

And that assumes no losses.

If you are using the power with battery backup then you will likely need more due to loses.

A lot of houses have oddly shaped roofs, shade from trees or adjoining buildings or simply not enough space on the south facing roof.

Edit: If you use the 25,000 kWH/year for 90 panels from the Vancouver Solar Coop as a reference you get: 23 kWh/panel/month which for a 36 panel system works out to be 833 kWh per month. This is worse than the solar calculator link suggests.

Edited August 17, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

Your math is wrong:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/solar-tools/residential-solar-calculator/

900kWh/month average household consumption in BC.

https://www.bchydro.com/search.html?q=What+is+the+average+power+usage+for+a+residential+customer?&qid=1429&ir_type=3

3.5 hour/day peak sunlight hours in Vancouver means you need a 11kW system.

That means you need at least 36 300W 3x5 panels or a 36 foot by 15 foot unobstructed south facing roof.

And that assumes no losses.

If you are using the power with battery backup then you will likely need more due to loses.

A lot of houses have oddly shaped roofs, shade from trees or adjoining buildings or simply not enough space on the south facing roof.

It's always easy, and just as often completely impracticable, pie in the sky.

[dre]

Your math is wrong:

http://www.affordable-solar.com/solar-tools/residential-solar-calculator/

900kWh/month average household consumption in BC.

https://www.bchydro.com/search.html?q=What+is+the+average+power+usage+for+a+residential+customer?&qid=1429&ir_type=3

3.5 hour/day peak sunlight hours in Vancouver means you need a 11kW system.

That means you need at least 36 300W 3x5 panels or a 36 foot by 15 foot unobstructed south facing roof.

And that assumes no losses.

If you are using the power with battery backup then you will likely need more due to loses.

A lot of houses have oddly shaped roofs, shade from trees or adjoining buildings or simply not enough space on the south facing roof.

Edit: If you use the 25,000 kWH/year for 90 panels from the Vancouver Solar Coop as a reference you get: 23 kWh/panel/month which for a 36 panel system works out to be 833 kWh per month. This is worse than the solar calculator link suggests.

The numbers that all these systems are based on is 5 hour peak days. My system IS 760khw per month based on 5 peak hours which IS a bit lower than the average usage in BC.

The 900KWH system has 24 panels, so thats up around 400SQF. Still small compared to almost all roofs.

And BC is not a likely case for off-grid applications. Grid power is too cheap here and its cloudy too often.

It makes more sense in much of the US, and countries like Australia and many more.

[Bonam]

Best way to go off grid is with one of these:

Personal nuclear reactor in every basement!

[TimG]

The 900KWH system has 24 panels, so thats up around 400SQF. Still small compared to almost all roofs.

Yet that rating claim is much higher than than what the website I linked says is reasonable AND it is much higher than what a real solar installation in Vancouver claims it can achieve. Given that I would take your power output claims with a grain of salt.

I am also thinking of usable roof space - not total roof space. Usable means southern exposure without trees and/or shadows from neighboring buildings.

These guys claim a 10kWh system needs up 1300 sqft of rooftop space.

http://www.solarmango.com/faq/4

Rooftop Solar PV plants require 100-130 sq.ft (10-13 sqm) of shade-free roof area per kW of plant capacity.

I think the last reference supports my argument that few houses in Vancouver have enough space for off grid solar.

And BC is not a likely case for off-grid applications. Grid power is too cheap here and its cloudy too often.

You are moving the goal posts. Any jurisdiction can make off grid viable by simply screwing up the system (and many jurisdictions infested with renewable obsessives are trying very hard to do that). You were trying to argue that off grid was more cost effective in general. Edited August 18, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Personal nuclear reactor in every basement!

Maybe for a furnace. Don't see how you would get electricity out of that without a generator/steam boiler set up which would likely be bigger than your house. Edited August 18, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

Maybe for a furnace. Don't see how you would get electricity out of that without a generator/steam boiler set up which would likely be bigger than your house.

Thermoelectric? Sterling engine? Any other compact heat engine? There's literally entire textbooks full of ways to get electricity from a source of heat.

[TimG]

Thermoelectric? Sterling engine? Any other compact heat engine? There's literally entire textbooks full of ways to get electricity from a source of heat.

Fair enough. But such a nuclear plant would likely output way to much energy for a single home. It would be more suited for a neighborhood substation which gives more options in terms of space.

[cybercoma]

Best way to go off grid is with one of these:

Personal nuclear reactor in every basement!

The Fallout universe has never been so close to reality.

[ironstone]

Yeah you missed the invention of the Battery.

You can make an On Demand solar system for 25k that could power most of the worlds homes without even being connected to the grid.

Heres a 700 KWH system that includes the solar panels.

http://www.wholesale...id-solar-system

16 000 dollars

Store the power in this.. that will hold 2 to 3 days worth of power.

http://www.wholesale...16-battery-bank

5000 dollars

Back it up with this... That's an 11k diesel backup that automatically comes on when your reserves get below a certain point.

That's 4000 dollars.

That's reliable off the grid power for 25k. I did two of these installations in homes along a lake near here and they worked great, but it was about 10 years ago and they were extremely expensive. But its getting cheap now and costs are still dropping very quickly. There are hundreds of millions of homes in the world that are in sunny enough locations so that the diesel backup would never have to come on. Most low rise buildings in the world could be run this way.

But if its not sunny where you live for part of the year, you can add a few of these... 3 of them would cost about 25 hundred dollars.

http://www.wholesale...2v-1-ar40-10-12

Are you saying that most of the energy produced by large scale wind farms and solar panels is currently stored in batteries?I know you're talking about small home installations,but what about the bigger operations?I was under the impression that most of the small amounts of energy from wind and solar(not homes) does not always get produced as we need it and Ontario often sells this energy at a net loss.

[Big Guy]

Wind Turbines sometimes make pretty spirals:

Smoke Signals

[dre]

Are you saying that most of the energy produced by large scale wind farms and solar panels is currently stored in batteries?

No I was challenging the statement that dependable solar energy is not possible with today's technolocy.

[dre]

Yet that rating claim is much higher than than what the website I linked says is reasonable AND it is much higher than what a real solar installation in Vancouver claims it can achieve. Given that I would take your power output claims with a grain of salt.

I am also thinking of usable roof space - not total roof space. Usable means southern exposure without trees and/or shadows from neighboring buildings.

These guys claim a 10kWh system needs up 1300 sqft of rooftop space.

http://www.solarmango.com/faq/4

I think the last reference supports my argument that few houses in Vancouver have enough space for off grid solar.

You are moving the goal posts. Any jurisdiction can make off grid viable by simply screwing up the system (and many jurisdictions infested with renewable obsessives are trying very hard to do that). You were trying to argue that off grid was more cost effective in general.

First of all I never said it was "generally less expensive". You completely invented that.

As for panel coverage for off-grid solar there IS NO NUMBER. Its different in every city, province, state, etc. The best places for this technology right now are Australia, Africa, South America, The southern USA, and the middle east.

But here are a set of numbers for a system that produces 900 KHW in a place that has 5 peak hours per day.

Panel Watts: 315

Panel Width: 40 inches

Panel Higher: 70 inches

Monthly output calculation (panel watts * number of panels * peak solar hours * 30 * system losses)

So here's our calculation

(315 *24*5*30*.079)

So our monthly output is 895860. 8.9 KWH

Total Panel Area for 24 Panels: 67200 square inches / 144 = 466 Square Feet.

Here's a map that would help you spec out a system for each location. As you can see coastal BC is going to be one of the more expensive places in the world to set up off-grid solar. And because we have so much cheap hydro its unlikely you will see huge growth in roof top solar for along time.

Edited August 21, 2016 by dre