Solar a viable energy alternative?

Status
Not open for further replies.
e57

e57

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco, CA
Just looking to open a can of worms.

How many electricians see Solar (PV) as a viable energy alternative?

Not in the terms of residential use, but in total consumption Residential, Industrial and Commercial.

For purposes of debate here are some numbers to play with:

This is the largest and most powerful solar facility planned to date, which will be roughly the size of San Francisco. About 5000 acres and 500MW....
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=35263

Heres the total US (Production not consumption) in MWh
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1b.html

FYI I'm not getting into the nay saying of alternative energy - just getting the average "Electricians perspective".

Would you put one on your home?

edited to remove spelling error
 
Last edited:
e57 said:
FYI I'm not getting into the nay saying of alternative energy - just getting the average "Electricians perspective".

Would you put one on your home?
Click to expand...

Unless PV systems come significantly further down in price, I don't see where it's worthwhile. I average about 50kWH a day in consumption and generating that would require a huge investment that I don't think would ever pay for itself, compared to the time value of the money involved. When I first started thinking about doing something about the unreliable power situation at my house I priced partial PV solutions. The ones I looked at were $20,000 and up, less rebates and tax incentives. Something that could get me completely off the grid was significantly greater than that.
 
Since the 2005 REA article, newer tech breakthroughs in PV (40% improved cell outputs, printed cloth solar cells, etc.) solar still is far from residential investment but getting momentum from a few State incentives. As far a electricians, NJatc's are getting more involved in training and developing programs to meet commercial projects throughout the country. Some of the largest training centers such as located in California (San Jose) and New York (Harriman) have worked with large subsidized projects for commercial installations that are becoming more aggressive in meeting green development civil and industrial interests. Solar is gaining but not for the little guy. Getting involved with solar and other electrical renewable energy sources is certainly worth considering for being in the electrical industry.
 
Alternative. Choosing an alternative means looking at the specific situation and apply non standard solutions to achieve a reasonable return on investment.

Granted a 50kWh load per day will cost out the wazoo if PV is the alternative chosen today. On the other hand, for example, a remote .1kwh LED sign load will cost more to read and bill than it will cost in the actual energy consumed under conventional schemes. The development of any alternative energy form is a function of applicability. To dismiss PV across the board as too expensive pushes the day when it actually can compete with conventional generation farther out. Right now, yeah, it cost way too much for typical applications but you do see more and more Civil Defense sirens and school zone signs using this "costly alternative". The cost per application can change. What did a four function calculator cost in the 60's? More than a weeks pay for most people. Why spend the money when long division is free??? What about cordless drills? Why spend a weeks pay in the 80's for one of those contraptions when twisting the wrist is soooooo cheap?

If the situation allows the cost effective use of PV, it should be chosen. As electricians we need to look for better ways of doing the same thing. That will lead to more development, better and cheaper ways of solar conversion and maybe even someday support a 50kWh residence...way out in the future.

Then again, we have only been electrified for a little more than 100 years. What's the hurry?
 
PV Power Supply

PV Power Supply

Hi all,

I would readily jump on the chance to have a PV system installed as a supplemental source of power, and agree that it would be a costly initial investment to go off-line completely.

If there were a pricing structure set up with the POCO stating that customers that have PV systems installed would get cheaper power, more people might become interested in doing something like this. I think that this would be great for the POCO system when peak-loading conditions are present, they would not have to stress the power systems as much when there is a high level of sun light, which is when the majority of people have their A/C cranked up.


One of my professors at ISU has been working on some different materials that would greatly increase the efficiency of semiconductors, and he claims that we dont even need those days where the sun is so direct to produce power. Good stuff.

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/sep/solar.shtml

Also, for customers that do not want to set up co-gen, they would have to have a system that would stop the flow of power back to the dist. system. I have heard that certain POCO employees are not in favor, because it endangers the lineman when he/she (are there any women line workers?) is out there working on the system, and is not expecting the power system to be operational.

For as much energy that we have by means of the sun, I wish that we had better technology, such as architectural PV materials. Maybe someday our siding could be made out of semiconducting material. Aren't there already shingles out there that are PV?

I say we go for it.

mp
 
e57 said:
This is the largest and most powerful solar facility planned to date, which will be roughly the size of San Francisco. About 5000 acres and 500MW
Click to expand...
That pretty well sums it up, considering you can put a traditional Coal fired plant generation 4 times that amount on 100 acres, or 10 times for nuclear operating at a fraction of the cost.

Solar has been and always will be a Niche Market. It has its uses like remote telemetry stations where comercial utility power is not feasible.

The US is the Sadia Arabia of coal, and has enough to supply all our energy needs (electrcity and auto fuel) for the next 100 years, and offers complete energy independance keeping all the jobs here at home.

The only other real alternative is nuclear which is starting up again by a new faclility being constructed in NM
 
clarification

clarification

Once again - I'm not looking at an individuals single residential bill that might take 10-20 years to see a return on investment etc.

I'm looking at the broader scope of TOTAL consumption, the 3,717,353MWh's of power vs. the 500MW peak that would be available for roughly 6 hours a day. The Commercial and Industrial markets are the other two thirds of the market, and I don't think I'll ever see Solar making it past the cost/benefit test for them.

Even with the Residential market it only passes the cost/benefit test when the "Feel Good" policy factor is applied. As as mentioned the onus of adding a PV system is on the property owner, something that is out of reach for a majority of people without subsidies. And even then the NIMBY's of the world take offense if they can see them...

So far it seems the answer to "would you put one one your home" seems to be in the 50/50 60/40 range from this and another post on another forum.

But what do you think about the broader scope of the total consumption and production for solar?

It doesn't seem to me that even the Million Solar Roofs Initiative will make a dent. Especially when we have a hard time forcing fluorescent lighting down peoples throats when required.
 
One thing that may help is that areas served by electric utilities can use a grid-tied solar system and do away with batteries. The batteries are the shortest lived part of the system, rather costly, very heavy, and have hadardous contents that cost money to dispose of.

As long as the utilities will credit the cost of the power generated on site at the same rate they charge (i.e. spin the meter backwards), this may be viable.

It is still difficult to generate a bunch of power for yourself with solar, as the panels are still about $5 per watt and require a lot of area. But if every house had some, it may significantly reduce the daytime demand from the power plant helping to balance the day/night generating needs.

I don't know of the maintenance issues for solar system, and what they would need over their life (damaged panels, dirty panels, dealing with corrosion, etc). If every house needed to pay an electrician to show up every few years to fix something, that could eliminate any savings right there. Solar may be a better solution for industrial complexes with on site facilities electricians to maintain.
 
Are you also interested in the energy costs involved in the manufacture of the panels, from mining the raw materials, through the construction of the assembly plant, through the electricity used in all oif this, to transporting them to their point of use?

I don't mean to sound like a tree-lover, but even all-electric vehicles are not 100% green. The electricity to recharge the batteries has to be generated somewhere, just like dry-cell battery production creates toxic wastes. Nothing is free, or 100% clean.

If I wanted to live off the grid, I'd look for a reliable source of moving water, or constant wind, or a solar-to-electricity method besides photo-voltaic panels. On a grand scale, I don't think we'll ever escape the power needs we've created by how we live.


suemarkp said:
As long as the utilities will credit the cost of the power generated on site at the same rate they charge (i.e. spin the meter backwards), this may be viable.
Click to expand...
That's called 'net metering.'

Added: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/netmetering.shtml
 
Last edited:
Well put Larry.

I have nothing to confirm this - but I believe they have only just crossed the line in the amount of energy to produce PV panels vs. the amount of energy they produce over the lifetime of said PV panel.

I also know of one person who was sued by their nieghbors to remove the unsitely device.... And I used tell my remotely located mother-in-law who would suffer week long power outages that I'd help her put up a wind-generator. (Something she had plenty of... Full face of Pacific Ocean...) She wasn't interested due to the noise. She eventually moved inland...
 
Here's another fun element of conversation....

The Solar Facility I mentioned earlier in the thread is powered by Stirling Engines.... http://www.stirlingenergy.com/


'the Stirling project would provide enough clean power to serve 278,000 homes for an entire year," said SCE Chairman John Bryson.
Click to expand...

Yet take up a simular amount of real estate. ;)

This is how one works.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

They need to be articulated toward the sun.
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/video/time_lapse_footage.wmv

They have even more maintenance problems than PV cells Fixed in place.
 
I'll bet the tone of the conversation was similar back when Edison could only energize lamps for a few blocks around an incredibly noisy dynamo station, in the nineteenth century.

Surely, this nonsense would never replace a candle and a match. :)
 
Why I outta...

leslie_nielsen_gagSHOP.jpg
 
solar energy power 'plants' "pollutes" the land they stand on, as they say.

here, we dont have net metering so there goes some of the incentives of putting up panels in our homes.

and we dont have those 'certified contractors list' who will install acceptable dc-ac converters (if we can find them)
 
I chanced upon this forum and I must say there's a lot of misconceptions about PV. I'm going to try to clear up some of these up.



tallgirl said:
Unless PV systems come significantly further down in price, I don't see where it's worthwhile. I average about 50kWH a day in consumption and generating that would require a huge investment that I don't think would ever pay for itself, compared to the time value of the money involved. When I first started thinking about doing something about the unreliable power situation at my house I priced partial PV solutions. The ones I looked at were $20,000 and up, less rebates and tax incentives. Something that could get me completely off the grid was significantly greater than that.
Click to expand...


I'd recommend getting an energy audit before a PV system. That's quite a lot power you're using.

gndrod said:
Since the 2005 REA article, newer tech breakthroughs in PV (40% improved cell outputs, printed cloth solar cells, etc.) solar still is far from residential investment but getting momentum from a few State incentives.
Click to expand...

Solar is a viable residential investment. It is better in certain areas though. For instance, in NJ, the average payback time on a PV system is anywhere from 7-12 years. In NY, it's a few years more. A lot of it is dependent upon whether or not your state has a rebate program, and the local net metering laws. A quick and easy way to check for rebates and your net metering laws is here

mpross said:
Hi all,

I would readily jump on the chance to have a PV system installed as a supplemental source of power, and agree that it would be a costly initial investment to go off-line completely.

If there were a pricing structure set up with the POCO stating that customers that have PV systems installed would get cheaper power, more people might become interested in doing something like this. I think that this would be great for the POCO system when peak-loading conditions are present, they would not have to stress the power systems as much when there is a high level of sun light, which is when the majority of people have their A/C cranked up.


One of my professors at ISU has been working on some different materials that would greatly increase the efficiency of semiconductors, and he claims that we dont even need those days where the sun is so direct to produce power. Good stuff.

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/sep/solar.shtml

Also, for customers that do not want to set up co-gen, they would have to have a system that would stop the flow of power back to the dist. system. I have heard that certain POCO employees are not in favor, because it endangers the lineman when he/she (are there any women line workers?) is out there working on the system, and is not expecting the power system to be operational.

For as much energy that we have by means of the sun, I wish that we had better technology, such as architectural PV materials. Maybe someday our siding could be made out of semiconducting material. Aren't there already shingles out there that are PV?
Click to expand...

Don't go offline. Use the power grid as your batter bank.

As for pricing structure, you won't have to worry about it if you have net metering. If you design the right system, your yearly bill will be zero.

I've seen that article before. There's a lot of stuff out there like that, but it's all in research.

The fear that the utility companies have is completely unnecessary. All grid-tied inverters have to be UL 1741 compliant, which states that when the grid goes down, the inverters shut off within 3ms. If there's a voltage spike, it shuts off. If the frequency of the grid goes outside range, it shuts off. Once the grid has been reestablished, the inverter waits 5 minutes before attempting to reconnect.

There are solar shingles; and they're horribly inefficient. You have to have 3-4 times the area as a normal module. There are also architectural PV modules, but they're all custom built, and incredibly expensive.
 
As far as the person who was sued. I understand that there is a federal law in place that allows for the placement of solar, wind , and such generating equipment. A local HOA might have tough time fighting it.

As far a PV panels.. As long as the overseas market is willing to pay a premium I don't see anyone dropping the prices soon. I think that production could be ramped up for greater enconomy of scale but I think that no one has made the leap to grater mass production. The common exuse ot the lack of raw materials. I think that is hogwash. several years ago I wanted to develop a product using LCD panels. I could not get anyone to supply them. I was told there was a shortage of raw materials. Now there is a flood of LCD product. The price has lowered to a fraction of what it was. Some venture needs to step up to the plate and start manufacturing the stuff in the masses.
 
PV System, I assume you 'sell' these things for a living??? Alot of the phrases seemed familiar.

In the OP I put it like this...
How many electricians see Solar (PV) as a viable energy alternative?

Not in the terms of residential use, but in total consumption Residential, Industrial and Commercial.
Click to expand...

You know, in the grand sceme of energy production and consumption. At the M/G/T watt level.

While I will agree thet solar can make sense for a relitive few niche market consumers who are willing to sacrifice some of thier consumption to make solar pay off in the residential market. However, most do not fit that niche, or could afford to be part of the million roof initiative, with or without government subsidies that are fading fast. (And a good dose of "feel good", and political currency as an off-set.)

In a duplicate thread on another forum someone posted some interesting math.... Not vouching for accuracy, but this is what I was thinking about when I first posted. Even if solar were only a portion of generation in the US it is still neither economicaly or electricaly viable at this point in time. IMO. Capitol*Real estate*(supply/demand)+maintenance/MWatt output*time= "Can we put wind-generators around the nuke plant?"
Number house-sized solar panels spread evenly throughout the US required to supply US with total electricity demands:
6.22Ewh / (829W * 24 * 365) = 856 million house-sized panels (compared to 120 million households in the US, which includes aparments and townhouses)- works out to about a quarter acre of solar panels per every family in the US. BUT, that's lopsided as most of that comes from the summer. If we go by straight winter values, it works out to closer to 17 acres of solar panels per family. US GDP: $ 11.75 trillion
856 million house-sized panels: $158 trillion
Click to expand...
ref:

Unless solar makes a huge leap in VA/sq' output, I tend to think that money and resources are better allocated in another 'green' energy source, rather than installing a Model-T on every roof in America. Money would be better spent today putting a 5MW wind turbine on every skyscraper in the country.
 
e57 said:
In a duplicate thread on another forum someone posted some interesting math.... Not vouching for accuracy, but this is what I was thinking about when I first posted. Even if solar were only a portion of generation in the US it is still neither economicaly or electricaly viable at this point in time. IMO. Capitol*Real estate*(supply/demand)+maintenance/MWatt output*time= "Can we put wind-generators around the nuke plant?"
Click to expand...

I don't know where the total electric energy figures come from, but I do know that I can generate all of my house's consumption right on my 0.08 acres of land. I wouldn't be able to do much in the back yard, but it could be one.

I think that the real impediment to people generating solar at their homes is the initial investment as well as the time value of money. When I priced what it would take to go "off the grid" the cost came out to about $50K, minus whatever rebates and tax cuts I'd be eligible for. I think that netted out to about $15K once all was said and done. With my total annual electric bill right at $2,350 per year, I think I can earn almost that much in the stock market on that $15K. Meaning, I could just about pay my entire electric bill if I put $15K into some of the mutual funds I own. So why would I put a bunch of solar panels all over my yard? And if I had to pay all $50K, I could definitely pay my electric bill with a very conservative bond fund with a 4.7% annual return.

Where I think solar becomes viable is on the low end of production, not the "going off the grid" end. I've been looking at having a 13kW Generac installed as backup power and, as I recall, the total cost would be on the order of $10K. For not a lot more, I could install a 1kW array, some number of kWH worth of storage, an inverter and transfer switches. I wouldn't have the same capacity as with the generator, but I would be able to recover some of those costs by reducing what I take from the grid. So, if a 13kW generator is something I really want, I can get to a reasonably close replacement using solar and be able to reduce my electric costs in the process.

The advantage of that approach -- starting with something small -- is that many of the components required to do what I described above can also be used with a larger array should the need arise, or the financial ability / desirability to do so occur. This "seed and grow" approach is, I think, a viable path to increased solar production. I also think that if we get into a situation where summer blackouts / brownouts become common that we'll see people starting to consider a little local generation as an alternative to watching the lights go out a couple of hours a day during periods of peak demand. It would take about one week of that for me to do exactly what I've described above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top