----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Bill Moyers Reports: Earth on Edge
> At 10:54 1-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > A footprint of .63 meters squared isn't that much: you can fit several
of
> > > those panels on the roof of your house.
> >
> >No it is not. But you have to remember the output of one panel: about
0.25
> >kwatt-hour per day. As a result of this, 44 billion of these panels
would
> >be needed to meet the needs of the US. That is a lot of space. With
about
> >105 million households in the US, and with household use of electricity
as
> >about half of the total, we would be talking about 200 of these panels
per
> >household. That is a total footprint of 120 meters squared.
>
> Apparently, household energy use in the US is a lot higher than in The
> Netherlands. I found the following figures at
> http://www.duurzame-energie.nl/ (sorry, it's in Dutch). A panel of 1 m^2
> generates ~80 kWh per year (under Dutch weather conditions); a system of 4
> m^2 produces 10% of the average household energy use. IOW: to get the
> average Dutch household on 100% solar power you'll need 40 m^2 per
house --
> only a third of what you say is needed.
>
I was curious about the source of this difference, so I went to another site
to look at the Minnesota electricity usage. I found that line loss accounts
for about 2/3rds of the residental power usage. So, the actual power use in
the US is closer to the use in the Neatherlands (assuming that you did not
include the line loss figure) than the 3x. My calcuation is that Minn. uses
about 20% more electricity, without calculating line loss. Some of this can
be attributed to the colder and hotter weather in Minn. compared to the
Netherlands.
Just to be clear, I found a mistake in my calculations...including line loss
that need not be included if just a single house is considered.
Anyway, having a system cost of $33k/house does not seem unreasonable.
Except, of course, for the cost of long term storage if solar becomes a big
part of the mix. One may have to have significant excess capacity on line
for use in cloudy weather, as one would need that capacity on low wind days
if wind power is used. That raises the price of going green somewhat, but
it is not by itself a killer.
> The Dutch Dept. for the Environment (http://www.minvrom.nl) (sorry, it's
in
> Dutch too) puts the cost of a 1 m^2 panel at ~NLG 2,000 (including all
> needed equipment and cost of installation). So, it would cost roughly 40 x
> NLG 2,000 = NLG 80,000 (or ~USD 32,000) to get the abovementioned average
> household on solar power -- roughly a third of the USD 100,000 you
mention.
>
> The real price for installing it will be even lower because of subsidies
> from the national and local government and power companies.
>
Let me quibble here. Other rate payers will foot the bill for the power
company subsidies and tax payers will foot the bill for the governmental
subsidies. The cost doesn't go away, it is just transferred to other
people. That's important in considering the full cost.
>
> > >The system works in The Netherlands, it could also work in the US.
> >
> >In what sense does it work? Are there are few high profile showcases
houses
> >that hare heavily subsidized, or are there many purely solar houses?
>
> I think there are a few purely solar houses, but those are probably
> showcase houses. However, it's becoming common practice now to install
> solar panels and sun boilers into new houses (entire housing blocks at a
> time). Of course, this is relatively cheap because of the large surfaces,
> and the fact that it's cheaper to install them while building a house than
> build a house first and install solar panels later.
>
I didn't even include installation costs in my assessment. Solar boilers do
sound cost effecient, I wonder what is keeping them from being used
extensively. According to Charlie's numbers, the return on an invenstment
in a solar boiler is about 20%. That's not bad. Cut it in half and it
still makes sense. If it is that good of an investment, why aren't more
people installing them?
> There have also been a few projects to build housing blocks where the aim
> was to minimize energy use. The first project resulted in 77 energy
> efficient houses: these households can reach an reduction in energy
> consumption of sixty (!) percent. These houses aren't any more expensive
> than other houses: they were sold for an average of NLG 325,000, which is
> fairly cheap by Dutch standards.
>
> So far, 5 projects (a total of over 200 houses) have been completed;
> average reduction in energy consumption in these houses is 45%. A few
dozen
> similar projects (for a total of 10,000 houses) have already been started.
>
OK, lets assume this is true. Why are there only small pilot projects for
these houses?
Why isn't every new house built this way? If one spends no more money and
cuts utility bills, it seems like a no brainer.
> Also, a lot of small-sized equipment runs entirely on solar power. For
> instance, various goverment agencies have a lot of equipment installed
> throughout the country to measure things like weather conditions, noise
> levels and pollution levels. Over the last few years, the government has
> made it a point to equip all that equipment with solar panels.
>
Use of solar power in these applications is not uncommon. We have solar
yard lights. They don't work very well, but they were not expensive.
> It's also used for other things, such as energy for remote locations
> (houses and farms in the middle of nowhere, and on islands), public
> lighting, beacons, and automated feeding equipment for cattle.
>
That is also a reasonable use.
> Something else that is heavily promoted (and is quite succesful) is Green
> Electricity (electricity from renewable sources). The price per kWh is
> higher, but you don't pay Energy Tax over it. Because of that, switching
to
> Green Electricity will cost the average household a mere NLG 2.50 per
month
> extra...
>
Out of curiosity, how do you have neighbors obtaining power from different
sources? You can't have two sets of wires, that's prohibitive. I'm
guessing that its handled with accounting.
>
> We don't get 10% of our energy from solar power, but we're working on
> something like that. Our aim is to have 10% of our energy come from
> renewable sources by the year 2020. Not only from solar power, but also
> from other sources such as wind, bio mass, and water.
>
That goal does not seem unreasonable. In 1999, the US obtained 7.5% of its
power from these sources, including 3.5% from hydro and 3.2% from biomass.
Solar and wind combined for 0.12%. I would have no problem thinking that
the US could have 10% in 2020.
But, going from 10% to 20% will be a lot more difficult. People are
complaining about the environmental impact of biomass: buring garbage does
have pollution byproducts. We are close to tapped out for hydro. I'm
guessing that wind may become practical enough for the most effective areas
to be utilized for a couple of percent. Solar boilers may offer another
couple of percent. Beyond 15%, it looks difficult.
Dan M.
