Gene wrote:
>I love the concept of using totally sustainable energy. I think it makes
>sense to do all those things that a solar system calls for in the way of
>energy efficiency. I also think solar electricity is unfeasible at its
>present price unless one lives in an area of exhorbitant electricity rates
>or is building a new homestead so many miles from the grid that it will
>cost a fortune to be connected.
Viewing our choices as either "solar" or "grid" doesn't fit
the reality i see today. I'm going to try approaching this
as somewhere in the middle.
>Small units do have good uses: powering
>distant electric fences, pumps, portable computers, radios. Solar is not
>feasible for the heavy starting loads of any tool powered by a serious
>motor. My wood planer, for instance, has a five horsepower motor. There is
>no way that solar batteries are going to make that thing hum without
>draining fast.
If we are talking about Guerrilla solar there are no
batteries and no problems with motors. With battery systems
many people have found ways to run small shops. Over the
years Homepower has reported on some of these in great
detail. It is true that "stand alone" solar is not ideal for
these applications but how many people need large motors?
What i've found is that big motors require a large surge of
power to get started. This is the biggest problem and not
the batteries. We have a grain grinder that uses a car
starter motor and run it often. Our system is metered so i
can watch the amp-hours and current at the batteries. The
impact is minor compared to the refrigerator that runs all
day and night. Things like vacuum cleaners are also
insignificant. This tells me that the average house could
use solar and according to statistics in HomePower it is
happening. I think over 20,000 houses are now solar/wind and
the industry is growing at about 20 percent per year.
>Here in the Ozarks we enjoy very reasonable electric rates.
>I average about thirty dollars per month for electricity, including pumping
>lots of irrigation water, heating a waterbed, using computer, color TV,
>microwave, toaster oven, freezer, refrigerator, beer tapper, window air
>conditioner, radial arm saw, the aforementioned planer, portable saw and
>drill. At less than $400 yearly electric costs, it would take decades to
>pay for a PV system and that system would not give me the power and
>flexibility I now enjoy.
OK, i agree. This will continue to be true if everyone
thinks short term costs. The costs are tied to economies of
scale and until solar is a common commodity it will be
expensive. We won't have appliances suited for solar until
the demand increases. In other words, we guarantee solar
will be expensive by thinking only in terms of short term
costs. The other view would be investing in the future. We
already have the power plants so this isn't an "either/or"
decision it is a question of do we want to increase
our use of solar and how do we do it?
A few people building solar systems might help. It would
be like planting a seed that grows slowly and the planting
costs are not regained until future generations.
If we wait for an energy crisis or an ecological crisis then
the inclusion of solar power might be very painful. Another
way to view this.... If we spent the money used in the Gulf
war on adding solar power, what would the impact have been?
Most buildings in the US would have some solar today and so
would parts of our transportation system.
The impact of going solar would be to depress oil prices and
oil was the biggest issue in the gulf war. It is all connected;
oil, solar, our individual decisions and how we view costs.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.xprt.net/~jko
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
