Solar Panels so expensive

Quote from maxpi:

Personally I think solar is here for the technically minded people who want to go to the trouble. You can build solar air heating chambers on the south side of buildings and circulate the warm air, you can heat water with solar, you can capture wind energy, you can completely cool a house, even in the Mojave Desert without a swamp cooler or central air, you can build trellises and grow vines over your house to shade it, you can do it all at low expense for the most part.

I was in a house in the Mojave Desert that was built to be energy efficient. The guy borrowed ideas from the middle east about blocking the sun coming into the south facing rooms in the summer to cool the house and opening the shutters in the winter to warm the house. He built it on a thick concrete slab which had air passages built into it. At night he ran a squirrel cage fan to cool the slab. The house was framed with 2x6's so that more insulation could be put inside the walls than if framed with 2x4's so it maintained it's internal temperature very well. His house temperature was very well controlled. It was cool in there on a day when it was so hot out that car door handles burned your hand. It was quiet in there too, no fricking central air noise. He did that with technology that was available for the last what, 150 years? Before that you would have to hire a guy to run the squirrel cage fan at night with a bicycle or something.

It costs $500/month to cool the same size house with central air and $200 to heat it with gas. So what have they been building for the last 30 years in the Mojave Desert since that fuel efficient and quiet house was built? Stupid f^^^ing 2x4 framed houses with central air, what would you expect?? They don't even circulate air from the attic to warm the house in the winter. Meanwhile people are concerned about the cost of fuel and the pollution.

There is no science involved in decisions in the US. The building industry does not give a rat's posterior about the environment or fuel costs apparently, or about the homeowners overall costs so they resist changes. Did Al Gore do anything about this situation all his 8 years in office? Hell no, he allowed the forests to be burned up reducing the carbon sink and spewing millions of tons of pollution, maybe billiions for all I know, into the air and now he is selling carbon credits.

I wonder if a fuel efficient house would even sell if it's initial cost was higher? Do people think that far ahead or do they even understand the basic idea of fuel efficiency regarding their dwelling? Industrial buildings in the Mojave Desert are no better, you might expect industry to make better decisions but apparently they don't get it either.

Whatever.
More...

I would pay a 10-15 % prem. for a energy efficient house such as ICF, insulated concrete formation, which is proven to cut energy usage significantly. They even have some nice styles too. But if I want one it would be a 200% premium I believe because there is a shortage of concrete, and it would be a custom build, in the US. I read we export 1/3 to China of what we have. Imagine an energy efficient home that has wonderful soundproofing too!

P.S. I just wanted to add I was originally looking into in for it's sound proof stats, but the stats on energy efficiency are there too. One of the reason I own a house is I can't stand to hear ppl. through crappy const. townhouses like most are built in the US. Having just come back from Europe, the build with concrete and some brick. You can almost never hear your neighbors, at all, even in a government owned flat. The thickness of the double pained windows is so much greater too and we have the same climate as they do in the winter, in Denver.

If I could just get a townhouse that was truly well build and energy efficient I would probably sell this house as I don't enjoy the upkeep.
 
A few years ago, when we had the energy deregulation disaster in Calif, I looked into solar installation for my house. Even with the enormous rebate programs at the time, my investment recoup period was about 7 years. Without the rebates it was around 13-15 years. You have to run the numbers for yourself because your energy usage determines the recoup length.

And that doesn't consider the carry cost (opportunity cost) of the $15k+ initial investment otherwise the recoup period would be double for me.

YMMV
 
Quote from dandxg:

I would pay a 10-15 % prem. for a energy efficient house such as ICF, insulated concrete formation, which is proven to cut energy usage significantly. They even have some nice styles too. But if I want one it would be a 200% premium I believe because there is a shortage of concrete, and it would be a custom build, in the US. I read we export 1/3 to China of what we have. Imagine an energy efficient home that has wonderful soundproofing too!

P.S. I just wanted to add I was originally looking into in for it's sound proof stats, but the stats on energy efficiency are there too. One of the reason I own a house is I can't stand to hear ppl. through crappy const. townhouses like most are built in the US. Having just come back from Europe, the build with concrete and some brick. You can almost never hear your neighbors, at all, even in a government owned flat. The thickness of the double pained windows is so much greater too and we have the same climate as they do in the winter, in Denver.

If I could just get a townhouse that was truly well build and energy efficient I would probably sell this house as I don't enjoy the upkeep.
More...

Americans make krappy stuff. I want to get past this strategy development work I'm finishing up here and find some place that makes more sense. I've always hated krappy stuff and always lived in the US, it's getting desperately old.
 
5.jpg

bart_orlando_arcata_plaza_2003_smaller.image.jpg
 
Quote from toc:

As a proven leader in the energy field, AEHI seeks become the first company to harness the natural energy delivered in a bolt of lightning, by collecting power from the ground area surrounding the lightning strike and converting it into usable electricity to be sold through existing power grids.
http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com/alternate_energy.html

The average lightning bolt contains approximately one million kilowatts (1,000,000 kW) of electrical energy, and lightning strike towers work by ‘harvesting’ this atmospheric electrical energy and converting a substantial portion of it into usable electricity. Harnessing the natural energy produced from a bolt of lightning as a clean energy solution will not only eliminate numerous environmental hazards associated with the energy industry, it will also significantly reduce the costliness of power production. When amortized over four to seven (4-7) years, a lightning farm will be able to produce and sell electricity for as low as $0.005 per kilowatt hour, thus significantly undercutting the current production costs of its competing energy sources.

Our project research team has successfully developed a model prototype to demonstrate the ‘capturing’ capabilities of the lightning farm technology, and initial project focus will be on the development of a mobile full-scale lightning farm to be tested during peak lightning season (July through August) of 2007.
More...

toc,

That's a facinating concept. Can you tell us in laymens terms how the technology works? I read once that scientists were thinking of placing metal towers out at sea that when struck by lightning, would convert salt water to hydrogen via electrolysis. Is this a similar thing?

Runningbear
 
Quote from maxpi:

Americans make krappy stuff. I want to get past this strategy development work I'm finishing up here and find some place that makes more sense. I've always hated krappy stuff and always lived in the US, it's getting desperately old.
More...

I honestly believe Americans can and do make some really great stuff, but we have a disposable mentality, that's the real problem. Europeans pay alot for stuff, with VAT, and they treat it well. VAT is not the answer by any means. But a generational shift in attitude about paying for quality and treating things with more respect is IMO.
 
Solar is presently expensive compared to fossil fuel options. The average payback period is 15 years without rebates. PV cells are expensive to make and won't be getting much cheaper.

In Australia, the government has just lifted the rebate to $3000 per home, which is pretty good considering that a solar system increases the value of your property. Remember, your buying an asset. Rather than giving $15,000 away to the power company.

Solar is an ideal solution to future energy needs because power is generated during peak usage times, like 3pm on a hot summer day when everyone is running their air conditioners.

One of the most cost effective solar options is a rather old technology that uses freznal lenzes to focus the suns rays. Have a look at:

www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au

The real answer lays with the newer technologies that don't use silicon. These are 5 to 7 years away from commercialisation and are predicted to be comparable with coal at at 5c per kilowatt hour.

Another serious contender is solar hrdrogen - producing hydrogen directly from sunlight using titanium oxide and galium cells. This option will be become very attractive in the not too distant future and will effectively allow people to produce their own hydrogen for use in their vehicle.

Biofuels are not a long term option. They put extra strain on agricultral resources. And if you have to choose between food or fuel. Food is a better option in a survival sense.

The only answer is renewables. In 20 years, china's energy consumption will exceed the entire world's currently usage. All the biofuel in the world will not satisfy 10% of that.

Runningbear
 
Quote from Runningbear:

The real answer lays with the newer technologies that don't use silicon. These are 5 to 7 years away from commercialisation and are predicted to be comparable with coal at at 5c per kilowatt hour.

Another serious contender is solar hrdrogen - producing hydrogen directly from sunlight using titanium oxide and galium cells. This option will be become very attractive in the not too distant future and will effectively allow people to produce their own hydrogen for use in their vehicle.
More...

I don't know, people always underestimate how long it takes for new technologies to become feasible. Remember in the 80s when it was predicted that in 15 years, superconductors would be carrying our electricty? Where are those people now? If they say 5-7 years, figure it'll be between 25 years and never.

I've been hearing all the predictions about solar for decades. I've concluded that it will remain a tiny energy source for another couple of generations.... or longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top