*
Implementation of solar and wind energy technology seems to be rather expensive. The break even point on the initial investment could take years in some cases. Interest in this technology has been around for quite a while yet I don’t see a wide implementation. Does anyone think this will ever be a viable home energy alternative or will it remain a novelty? Does anyone think that it’s practical now?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Fine Homebuilding's editorial director has some fun news to share.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Talking about generating electricity or heating water? The latter pays off very quickly in areas with lots of sunshine.
The first VCRs cost a couple thousand dollars, and they had only two heads and manual tuners. The first CDs cost fifteen bucks or more, now they show up in junk mail. If there were a market demand for solar energy, the cost would likely go down, and the performance would improve. As it is, the electrical current generated by burning coal is no different qualitatively than the current from a solar cell. Now, if we could only develop electricity epicures -- "Ahh, this is obviously a fine, vintage wave form..I'd say '54 Philco." Then there'd be solar cells on every golf course home in the country.
*As was mentioned, solar hot water heating or solar space heating, particularly when included in a new house design, can have a short payoff period. Solar electricity generation can be cost effective currently if you would otherwise have to pay to run a power line much of distance to your house - of course you can't run too many 3hp Unisaws off of most of these types of systems. If you are interested in home solar electricity you might want to check out:http://www.homepower.com/hp/which is the site for Home Power magazine - they also cover electric cars, home water turbine generators, and similar things. Their links section is fairly extensive.
*Solar has been around a long time now, and hasn't caught on(in my neck of the woods), I would say it's going to be a long time before it becomes low cost and practical. Mild forms of passive solar can easily be incorporated, but designs such as double envelope homes made a splash 15 yrs. ago, but you just don't see 'em now.John
*I was once keenly interested in it, but the cost remains prohibitive in all but extreme cases. One must be a true zealot, or i connoisseurto be willing to pay for the hardware. The big provincial utility in Ontario is finally being forced to investigate alternative sources for power ,but the cost of electricity here, although much higher than even 10 years ago is still relatively cheap!I doubt costs for solar will ever drop to the point where it will be a viable altrnative for most people. . . too bad!-pm
*As Larry Spielvogel said a long, long time ago, "Any house that has to have solar added to it was never properl;y dsigned." In a solar house the only thing that matters is the solar system.In a Micro Energy System House (MESH) the only thing that matters is the house. Pay attention to the house and your biggest problem becomes finding a heat source small enough to do the job.As a physicist friend of mine predicted in the late 1970s it will be well after the turn of the century before photovoltaics (PVs)are affordable by the average homeowner.GeneL.
*I have been interested in solar energy for a nunber of years and would like to see greater implementation. Solar energy is quite costly now with a payback exceeding at least 15 years. Of course if you are looking to spend 20,000+ to extend power lines, things may look differently. One major drawback is that you now become the power company! You are responsible for all repairs and outages. Also you must constantly monitor power consumption and change some of your attitudes about electricity use. Electronics even when not in use can use large amounts of elec when just standing by. Right now the technology is available for very efficient user friendly systems. What it will take for the solar age to return is increased concern for environmental conservation and pollution. When energy costs skyrocket, increased demand for solar technology will cause costs to fall. Perhaps what would be best for solar is the return to power of an organization that most Americans have forgotten. OPEC.
*An interesting question with no simple answer.1. Wind power is very seldom efficient on a small scale.2. Passive solar elements are always cost effective as an original design element, since they can be incoporated at virtually no additional cost. They can provide design features beyond simply contributing to heat gain and cooling potential.4. Passive solar systems are usually not a good retrofit except in cases of major remodelling.3. Active solar space heat is very seldom cost effective. It can be cost effective as part of a hydronic heating system, but will probably not in itself justify using hydronic heat if there are not other reasons for doing so. 5. Active solar water heating can be cost effective if the alternative is high cost energy. If the alternative is low to medium cost energy then the payback can be quite long.6. So called passive (ie. thermosyphon) hot water systems are ugly, ill designed and seldom worth using. The energy saved vs a small pump is nil.7. Active solar pool/spa heating is almost always a good idea. The collectors are relatively inexpensive and the pumps are already part of the pool/spa system.9. Solar PV systems as an original design element can be useful, but the whole system must be designed around them. There should be no electric resistance heating elements of any kind. Lighting should be low voltage and efficient. Conventional refrigeration loads should be avoided. Motor loads should be minimized. Whether or not they are worth it is dependent on the cost of conventional infrastructure and the cost of electricity itself. 10. PV retrofits are seldom worth while, since most conventional electrical systems are not designed to minimize demand.
*Have been involved with solar electric(PV)off and on since 1963. I've seen PV panels become more efficient, better controllers and improved batteries. In fact, I just installed a system last week for a fellow who is approximately 30 miles from the electric grid. Got a call from him today and he is very happy to no longer be using Coleman lanterns and Aladdin lamps for light and to be able to have adequate electricity for lights, radios, rechargers, etc.And that is just what PV is for in my opinion; places where grid electricity isn't available and can't be made available at an economic price.PV is expensive to buy, puts out limited wattage per panel and is difficult to use for heavy loads. So, even in remote areas a typical system uses blended energy. That is; it uses PV for light duty loads; a generator for heavy loads like washing machines, table saws, etc; heat by convective heat with wood or coal; and cool with a propane refrigerator, or if the climate permits a "cold hole".I've seen PV installations in suburban areas but I can't fathom the mind-set that would spend the money on that. It doesn't pay back soon, if ever. It creates unnecessary polution in manufacturing the panels and batteries. And it is very poor "backup power".I'm told by some of my associates that the demand for PV energy is booming in remote areas all over the world. So, it definitely isn't a novelty and its' time has certainly come; but only for remote installations. Maybe someday a truly efficient panel/battery will be developed that will change the economics. But I'm putting my money on fuel cells, not PV.
*Mike. Thanks for the reply. I'd be interested to know why your groups"papers were not published.#2 in you post re passive solar. During the construction of the 1977 Leger House, the solar crowd had some definite ideas as to what must be incorporated in the structure. If I had listened Ed Mazria (The Passive Solar Energy Book)or Doug Balcomb--THE high priest of mass and glass--I would have had 480 square feet of glass in the south wall. This, according to Mazria is the amount necessary in 42 degrees N. Latitude.Ah, this was only the beginning. To handle the large temperature swings and overheating, a Trombe Wall--named after a Frenchman who didn't invent it--was the first choice, but in any event brick, masonry or other massive elements were necessary.What I did is now a matter of history. The Leger House runs circles around perhaps the best known solar house in the country:the New Jersey Kelbaugh House. This was accomplished with only approximately 100 square feet of glass in the south wall, and lots of cellulose. There was a slight bit of additional mass because of the double sheetrocking of the exterior walls.( the walls were not double sheetrocked to increase mass). Otherwise the mass was no more than what would be the case without the double sheetrocing. Has the passive solar community yet overcome its obsession with mass and glass? Don't misread me. I welcomed the sun's light and warmth. The profound difference between a MESH House and a Solar House is in what it emphasized. GeneL. I've long felt that thres is some hubris in the solar community position regarding solar. How do they know that we won't have a hydrogen economy? The sun would certainly play a part ies
*
Implementation of solar and wind energy technology seems to be rather expensive. The break even point on the initial investment could take years in some cases. Interest in this technology has been around for quite a while yet I don't see a wide implementation. Does anyone think this will ever be a viable home energy alternative or will it remain a novelty? Does anyone think that it's practical now?