Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

Options
Shockah
Shockah Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭
in Off Grid Solar & Battery Systems #1
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24079737/solar-customers-explore-options-off-the-grid?utm_content=buffer30926&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
· Share on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • BB.
    BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 33,439 admin
    #2
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    Welcome to the forum Shockah... Are you thinking of cutting the cord?

    We have at least one member here that took his business off grid (I think started the business off grid--Never was on grid). His solution was to get "free" old forklift batteries and, after removing one or two bad cells, rebuild the batteries and use them for some fairly large loads/AC inverters.

    Last I heard (a few years ago), he was very happy with the installation.

    In general, on the mainland (with lower costs for equipment), it appears that people can generate off grid power in the range of $1-$2+ per kWH by the time you take all of the installation and maintenance (battery replacement every ~5-8 years, new charge controllers+AC inverters every ~10+ years, backup fuel for genset, etc.). A few folks here have gotten their off grid power down in the $0.50 per kWH--Which is getting near competitive with grid power on the mainland--Especially for those locations with expensive power (California can hit $0.40+ per kWH) and locations with very high fixed monthly charges (I current pay ~$4.40 per month for minimum electric billing charge--Some places are getting fixed charges of $40-$90 per month).

    If you have high fixed charges, or are not close to existing power distribution systems (tens of thousands of dollars to run power lines less than a mile)--Off grid solar can make sense from the start--Especially if your loads are not too large.

    A very efficient off grid home that uses electricity for a refrigerator, some lighting, computer+TV, washing machine, well pump, etc... can get away with ~100 kWH per month or ~3.3 kWH per day--That is not too large of off grid power system--But it can still cost you $10,000+ to build such a system.

    If you have good sun (no major shading issues), and your loads are not too large, it is a possibility to go off grid.

    In California, we (in theory) have to pay the utility to allow us to go "off grid"--Pay the utility for their "stranded infrastructure costs" for losing "me" as a customer. Oh the fun of living with government+monopoly regulations.

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #3
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    Well BC Hydro is getting their whopping 25.5% rate increase (over 5 years). You should hear the people whine and complain! We'll be paying twelve-and-a-half cents per kW hour! Outrageous!

    Still one of the lowest rates in the world. They have not got a clue about electric costs around here, and the various governments put off small increases that should have been made over the past 20 years (politically expedient to tell voters your government-controlled electric rates aren't going up). Mind you the Crown Corporation had money with which to sponsor the Winter Olympics. :roll:

    I expect I'll be hearing questions from people about going off grid and/or adding grid-tie solar as a means to save money and I'll have to explain (again) that generating your own power for 5 times the price of the utility doesn't save you anything.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Shockah
    Shockah Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭
    #4
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    Thank you for the welcome, BB...

    No, I would not go completely off-grid.

    I did build an off-grid system for my lights, fridge, communications & garage door opener, and it is working flawlessly for a year now in this 365day Hawaiian Sun.
    That system cost me about $6000 and saves me about $30 off the top of my electric bill.

    The article in the original post is about Hawaiian Electric Company's latest tactics to delay on-grid PV installations... and it has customers seeking alternatives. Unfortunately, in the monopolized market here, the only option is to go off-grid.

    Cariboocoot, the kwh rate here on Oahu is 37¢ , and up to about 50¢ on the outer islands.
    · Share on Twitter
  • NorthGuy
    NorthGuy Solar Expert Posts: 1,913 ✭✭
    #5
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    Shockah wrote: »
    ... the kwh rate here on Oahu is 37¢ , and up to about 50¢ on the outer islands.

    I consume about 4MWh/year, which would be $1480/year at $0.37/kWh or $2000/year at $0.50/kWh. Before I went off-grid, my electric bill was close to $3000/year.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Shockah
    Shockah Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭
    #6
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    NorthGuy wrote: »
    I consume about 4MWh/year, which would be $1480/year at $0.37/kWh or $2000/year at $0.50/kWh. Before I went off-grid, my electric bill was close to $3000/year.

    Damn that is costly. $3000/yr here would get you about 7MWh.
    · Share on Twitter
  • mtdoc
    mtdoc Solar Expert Posts: 600 ✭✭
    #7
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    Cariboocoot wrote: »
    Well BC Hydro is getting their whopping 25.5% rate increase (over 5 years). You should hear the people whine and complain! We'll be paying twelve-and-a-half cents per kW hour! Outrageous!

    Yeah, I've been hearing a lot about this on the Victoria CBC station which comes in clear as a bell just across the Strait here in Port Angeles. We currently pay 0.065/kWh here and they are also talking about raising it some - people also upset. They have no idea how lucky we are in the PNW with all the hyrdo and wind energy available!

    For years they've been talking about an undersea power cable across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Port Angeles to Victoria. Here's and interesting bit from an article in our local paper
    “There is demand in both directions for a cable like this,” Manson said.

    “Renewables produce at different times. The more the transmission system can become like a web, the greater ability you have to shift power from where it’s being produced to where it’s needed at any given time.

    “British Columbia is really unique in the West in the size of the storage reservoirs that it has.”

    The Juan de Fuca cable is a joint venture between Sea Breeze Power and New England-based Boundless Energy. The concept was conceived about eight years ago, Manson said.

    Sea Breeze Power is interested in working with the PUD to build a converter station at the Port Angeles substation near Peninsula College. The federal government requires such a station to convert alternating current into direct current and back.

    “The technology that we would be employing with this high-voltage direct current allows an extremely fast bi-directional change of the flow,” Manson said.

    DC current!! Wonder what size cable and what kind of voltages involved there!
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #8
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    mtdoc wrote: »
    DC current!! Wonder what size cable and what kind of voltages involved there!

    Believe it or not, DC is often used for long-distance high-Voltage transmission because it has lower 'inertial' losses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_voltage_direct_current

    Note the mention of underwater use.
    · Share on Twitter
  • newl
    newl Solar Expert Posts: 53 ✭✭✭✭
    #9
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    "...but it will not be a cost effective option"

    I got a chuckle from that. Who is that person to determine what the real value is to the person that wants it?
    · Share on Twitter
  • northerner
    northerner Solar Expert Posts: 492 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    #10
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    newl wrote: »
    "...but it will not be a cost effective option"

    I got a chuckle from that. Who is that person to determine what the real value is to the person that wants it?

    I feel the same way. There are many others out there willing to pay more for a clean source of power.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Blackcherry04
    Blackcherry04 Solar Expert Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭
    #11
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    northerner wrote: »
    I feel the same way. There are many others out there willing to pay more for a clean source of power.
    You must be talking about something other than off grid solar, it sure isn't a clean source of power or cost effective.
    · Share on Twitter
  • northerner
    northerner Solar Expert Posts: 492 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    #12
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    Blackcherry04 wrote: »
    You must be talking about something other than off grid solar, it sure isn't a clean source of power or cost effective.

    It certainly is cleaner than coal burning power plants of which there are plenty powering the grid here in Alberta. Also, I run my generator on natural gas for the few months in winter when it's required, which is relatively clean.

    And that's the reason I'm so interested in alternatives to lead acid batteries. A battery that will last a lifetime and is made of non hazardous materials has great value!
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #13
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    There's no such thing as a non-hazardous material. It's all in how you use the stuff. Lead is a naturally occurring element and as such can not be considered a pollutant. Unless you ingest sufficient quantities, then it kills you just the same as any other metal. You need iron to be alive, but too much of that will kill you too. It is in fact possible to die from drinking an overdose of good, clean water.

    Solar energy is not free nor is it "non-polluting". It just shifts the costs and pollution to different types and areas. It is renewable, unlike fossil fuels which will eventually run out. It is not efficient, unlike fossil fuels which have a very high energy density. The question of how solar's efficiency equates to its pollution factor is a very long argument which is largely philosophical.

    "Last a lifetime" is a term used by salesmen, not scientists. Scientist know that "lifetime" is relative and eventually everything fails.

    Sorry but I'm too intelligent, too educated, and too experienced to be anything other than skeptical and cynical.
    · Share on Twitter
  • NorthGuy
    NorthGuy Solar Expert Posts: 1,913 ✭✭
    #14
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    Cariboocoot wrote: »
    "Last a lifetime" is a term used by salesmen, not scientists. Scientist know that "lifetime" is relative and eventually everything fails.

    A dentist told me that it's a good idea to install a tooth implant. I asked him how long would it last. He said it would outlive me. And I ask: "Is that because I die shortly after the installation?"
    · Share on Twitter
  • northerner
    northerner Solar Expert Posts: 492 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    #15
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    Cariboocoot wrote: »
    There's no such thing as a non-hazardous material. It's all in how you use the stuff. Lead is a naturally occurring element and as such can not be considered a pollutant. Unless you ingest sufficient quantities, then it kills you just the same as any other metal. You need iron to be alive, but too much of that will kill you too. It is in fact possible to die from drinking an overdose of good, clean water.

    Environmentally friendly is the term I should have used (to keep the skeptical and cynical satisfied). :p
    Solar energy is not free nor is it "non-polluting". It just shifts the costs and pollution to different types and areas. It is renewable, unlike fossil fuels which will eventually run out. It is not efficient, unlike fossil fuels which have a very high energy density. The question of how solar's efficiency equates to its pollution factor is a very long argument which is largely philosophical.

    I agree, but using renewable sources reduces the amount of pollution and our reliance on fossil fuels.
    "Last a lifetime" is a term used by salesmen, not scientists. Scientist know that "lifetime" is relative and eventually everything fails.

    I'm neither a salesman nor a scientist.:p
    · Share on Twitter
  • zoneblue
    zoneblue Solar Expert Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭✭
    #16
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    I find that a bit lame on hawaiis part. NZ is certainly no world leader in anything but sheep and dairy, but even here you can get a power company to install a battery based lease PV system. These systems are network connected and the power company can use the battery capacity to augment the grid when it wants to. This would be perfect for hawaii.

    See here:
    http://forum.solar-electric.com/showthread.php?21300-Power-company-offers-hybrid-PV-battery-lease-systems&p=171675#post171675
    1.8kWp CSUN, 10kWh AGM, Midnite Classic 150, Outback VFX3024E,
    http://zoneblue.org/cms/page.php?view=off-grid-solar


    · Share on Twitter
  • AceNZ
    AceNZ Solar Expert Posts: 104 ✭✭✭✭
    #17
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    northerner wrote: »
    It certainly is cleaner than coal burning power plants of which there are plenty powering the grid here in Alberta.

    Where do you think the power comes from to build solar panels, batteries and the other related equipment? Coal and other fossil fueled fired power plants are certainly at the top of the list. And the breakeven point for the energy it takes to create them vs. the energy they generate is many years away.

    The manufacturing process also generates large amounts of pollution and toxic materials. You are certainly causing more pollution and much higher immediate use of fossil fuel resources by moving to solar than you would by just staying connected to the grid.

    Solar is great in certain applications, but not because it's clean (in a global sense). Clean solar is an illusion; a look-here-not-there marketing trick.
    · Share on Twitter
  • techntrek
    techntrek Solar Expert Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭
    #18
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    Where do you think the power comes from to build solar panels, batteries and the other related equipment? Coal and other fossil fueled fired power plants are certainly at the top of the list. And the breakeven point for the energy it takes to create them vs. the energy they generate is many years away.

    The manufacturing process also generates large amounts of pollution and toxic materials. You are certainly causing more pollution and much higher immediate use of fossil fuel resources by moving to solar than you would by just staying connected to the grid.

    Solar is great in certain applications, but not because it's clean (in a global sense). Clean solar is an illusion; a look-here-not-there marketing trick.

    Many PV manufacturing facilities use grid-tied PV to power themselves. Solar PV breaks-even on the manufacturing energy input in about 2 years. Manufacturing PV does produce waste and pollution - as does any manufacturing process - but it is mostly contained at the point of production unlike burning coal which puts all of its pollution into the air. Plus the total amount of pollution is far, far less per kw produced than the amount of coal or gas needed to produce the same kw over 25-30 years (the lifetime of a PV panel).

    So what coal company are you trolling for on this solar forum?
    4.5 kw APC UPS powered by a Prius, 12 kw Generac, Honda EU3000is
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #19
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    Where do you think the power comes from to build solar panels, batteries and the other related equipment? Coal and other fossil fueled fired power plants are certainly at the top of the list. And the breakeven point for the energy it takes to create them vs. the energy they generate is many years away.

    The manufacturing process also generates large amounts of pollution and toxic materials. You are certainly causing more pollution and much higher immediate use of fossil fuel resources by moving to solar than you would by just staying connected to the grid.

    Solar is great in certain applications, but not because it's clean (in a global sense). Clean solar is an illusion; a look-here-not-there marketing trick.

    that's not quite accurate. true, there is a dirty past in the creation of solar equipment, but solar gets to the breakeven point after a few years and whatever is produced after that is done cleanly. the power plants continue their pollution and there was pollution in the creation of the power plants too. note that fossil fuel power plants will never reach a breakeven point and depending on one's definition of pollution it will hold very true for nuclear as well. solar is in a category that has little company as it will reverse and go into a positive direction negating the pollution footprint and that of other pollution sources while most other sources are either neutral or negatively dirty as is the majority of products. hydro is clean too, but it impacts nature in some ways too. it can be made to work with nature if one gives up the idea of a dam. it can be done, but is not as great on the generating potential.
    · Share on Twitter
  • boB
    boB Solar Expert Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭✭
    #20
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    northerner wrote: »
    Environmentally friendly is the term I should have used (to keep the skeptical and cynical satisfied). :p

    But batteries ARE environmentally friendly ! (A high percentage of the battery anyway)...

    They are recycled and made into new batteries, etc. Sounds fairly renewable to me.

    boB
    · Share on Twitter
  • zoneblue
    zoneblue Solar Expert Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭✭
    #21
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    And the breakeven point for the energy it takes to create them vs. the energy they generate is many years away.

    Id be interested in your source for this. The embodied energy models i have seen vary from as low as 18months to about 4 years.
    The manufacturing process also generates large amounts of pollution and toxic materials.

    And running a generator, driving a car, buying lots of cheap crap doesnt? Supporting nuclear, or dirty coal sources grid power forever doesnt?

    People have such high expectations of new technology, must it always be perfect before we adopt it...

    When we installed solar thermal gear in the late 90s, people were always asking whats the payback time. My response was always whats the payback time on your car, flat screen tv etc. Green stuff has to have a payback, but ordinary consumer stuff doesnt. Go figure.
    1.8kWp CSUN, 10kWh AGM, Midnite Classic 150, Outback VFX3024E,
    http://zoneblue.org/cms/page.php?view=off-grid-solar


    · Share on Twitter
  • bill von novak
    bill von novak Solar Expert Posts: 891 ✭✭✭✭
    #22
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    Where do you think the power comes from to build solar panels, batteries and the other related equipment?

    Other solar panels?
    And the breakeven point for the energy it takes to create them vs. the energy they generate is many years away.

    Yes, between one and three years. Thus after three years you are generating more than it took to build them. Fortunately solar-PV lasts 20+ years.
    The manufacturing process also generates large amounts of pollution and toxic materials. You are certainly causing more pollution and much higher immediate use of fossil fuel resources by moving to solar than you would by just staying connected to the grid.

    Nonsense. Burning coal alone, for example, generates a significant amount of heavy metal pollution for every kwhr produced. Solar generates it once (during manufacture) and then stops.
    Solar is great in certain applications, but not because it's clean (in a global sense). Clean solar is an illusion; a look-here-not-there marketing trick.

    Nothing is 100% clean. Solar is a lot cleaner than most other sources of power, though.
    · Share on Twitter
  • AceNZ
    AceNZ Solar Expert Posts: 104 ✭✭✭✭
    #23
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    techntrek wrote: »
    Many PV manufacturing facilities use grid-tied PV to power themselves.

    "Many PV manufacturing facilities"? I'm skeptical. A few, I could believe. Plus, energy inputs extend way beyond the manufacturing plants.

    Also, what was used to make the original panels?

    "Grid tied" -- and what powers the grid?
    techntrek wrote: »
    Solar PV breaks-even on the manufacturing energy input in about 2 years. Manufacturing PV does produce waste and pollution - as does any manufacturing process

    2 yrs sounds about right for manufacturing; I suspect it's more like 6 yrs for residential. But that means you're increasing pollution in the short-term; you're pulling those years of waste output into the present, instead of deferring them.
    techntrek wrote: »
    - but it is mostly contained at the point of production unlike burning coal which puts all of its pollution into the air.

    Except for the part about panels being made with power from coal-fired plants in the first place. Also, there isn't really a "point" of production; panels use components and materials that come from all over. There are mining, extraction, processing and transportation requirements at many steps along the way.
    techntrek wrote: »
    Plus the total amount of pollution is far, far less per kw produced than the amount of coal or gas needed to produce the same kw over 25-30 years (the lifetime of a PV panel).

    Yes -- and that's my point. Buying panels today means increasing pollution today, in exchange for the hope of a cleaner tomorrow. But it's worse in the short-term.
    techntrek wrote: »
    So what coal company are you trolling for on this solar forum?

    I own solar myself. I don't need to work for coal company to recognize the value that coal and other fossil fuels bring to the modern world -- including things like the ability to manufacture more panels. I'm pro-solar -- just not for the same reasons some people are. But I'm also generally pro-coal, oil, nuclear and hydro. Energy is a good thing; each technology has its pros and cons.
    niel wrote: »
    solar is in a category that has little company as it will reverse and go into a positive direction negating the pollution footprint and that of other pollution sources while most other sources are either neutral or negatively dirty as is the majority of products.

    Solar never reverses its pollution footprint. It just starts at a certain point and doesn't get much bigger (panels and other components do require disposal and/or recycling at end of life). The waste that was required to make panels is still around somewhere; using panels doesn't make it go away.
    boB wrote: »
    But batteries ARE environmentally friendly ! (A high percentage of the battery anyway)...

    They are recycled and made into new batteries, etc. Sounds fairly renewable to me.

    Yes, but they require a large energy input, and significant pollution to initially manufacture. Mining lead, smelting, transportation -- all that stuff.
    · Share on Twitter
  • AceNZ
    AceNZ Solar Expert Posts: 104 ✭✭✭✭
    #24
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    zoneblue wrote: »
    Id be interested in your source for this. The embodied energy models i have seen vary from as low as 18months to about 4 years.

    Depends on the model, of course, as well as the manufacturing and mining processes used, as well as where and how the panels are used. Lots of variables. The main thing is that the payback isn't instant, and the pollution aspect never goes away.
    zoneblue wrote: »
    And running a generator, driving a car, buying lots of cheap crap doesnt? Supporting nuclear, or dirty coal sources grid power forever doesnt?

    Oh, it absolutely does. I never said otherwise.

    What I'm objecting to is the marketing image of solar power being perfectly pure and clean. It's not.
    zoneblue wrote: »
    People have such high expectations of new technology, must it always be perfect before we adopt it...

    That's kinda the point I was trying to make.
    zoneblue wrote: »
    When we installed solar thermal gear in the late 90s, people were always asking whats the payback time. My response was always whats the payback time on your car, flat screen tv etc. Green stuff has to have a payback, but ordinary consumer stuff doesnt. Go figure.

    The questions about payback time for energy generation are important because a certain energy input to make a device whose purpose is to generate energy, only makes sense if you get out more than you put in, within a certain amount of time.
    bill von novak wrote: »
    Yes, between one and three years. Thus after three years you are generating more than it took to build them. Fortunately solar-PV lasts 20+ years.

    There are also non-energy-input related sources of pollution in the manufacture of panels, which don't go away.
    bill von novak wrote: »
    Nonsense. Burning coal alone, for example, generates a significant amount of heavy metal pollution for every kwhr produced. Solar generates it once (during manufacture) and then stops.

    But you just said above that it takes between one and three years to reach energy breakeven. That means, during that time, you have generated more pollution than you would have if you didn't use solar.

    Short-term pollution is higher, in the hope that long-term pollution will be lower.
    bill von novak wrote: »
    Solar is a lot cleaner than most other sources of power, though.

    Yes, but only in the long run.

    In the short run, right off the manufacturing line, they've required a bunch of pollution and energy to create and have returned precisely nothing.
    · Share on Twitter
  • mtdoc
    mtdoc Solar Expert Posts: 600 ✭✭
    #25
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    In the short run, right off the manufacturing line, they've required a bunch of pollution and energy to create and have returned precisely nothing.


    But this is true for fossil fuels as well. Coal for example requires huge energy inputs and pollution to mine and transport. The power plants needed to convert the coal to energy also have huge amounts of embedded energy.

    The bottom line is that both renewable and non- renewable sources of energy require large up front energy costs (and pollution). The difference is with renewables such as solar - once those upfront costs are paid for by production you are net positive from a fossil fuel, CO2 and other pollution standpoint, while when utilizing coal, oil, nat gas, etc - you are never net positive in that regard.
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #26
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    no use arguing the point and i'd like to see him back up his claims.

    in fact, just what are you doing here if you are so against solar? if solar is so bad why do you have it? other things in life must really irk you to no end. why should you go on? in fact, lessen your pollution by sparing us from it.
    · Share on Twitter
  • AceNZ
    AceNZ Solar Expert Posts: 104 ✭✭✭✭
    #27
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    mtdoc wrote: »
    But this is true for fossil fuels as well. Coal for example requires huge energy inputs and pollution to mine and transport. The power plants needed to convert the coal to energy also have huge amounts of embedded energy.

    Yes, absolutely true.
    mtdoc wrote: »
    The bottom line is that both renewable and non- renewable sources of energy require large up front energy costs (and pollution).

    Agree.
    mtdoc wrote: »
    The difference is with renewables such as solar - once those upfront costs are paid for by production you are net positive from a fossil fuel, CO2 and other pollution standpoint, while when utilizing coal, oil, nat gas, etc - you are never net positive in that regard.

    On the energy side, yes -- but there are residual pollutants that never go net positive.
    niel wrote: »
    no use arguing the point and i'd like to see him back up his claims.

    Which claims do you doubt?
    niel wrote: »
    in fact, just what are you doing here if you are so against solar?

    I'm not against solar. I'm against the idea that solar is 100% clean and non-polluting; that it's somehow a magic way to get something for nothing.
    niel wrote: »
    if solar is so bad why do you have it?

    I didn't say solar was so bad. I said it's not 100% clean. In fact, I love solar. I own solar.
    niel wrote: »
    other things in life must really irk you to no end. why should you go on? in fact, lessen your pollution by sparing us from it.

    Right.
    · Share on Twitter
  • AceNZ
    AceNZ Solar Expert Posts: 104 ✭✭✭✭
    #28
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    Here's a link to an article about the pollution behind PV panels (just one of many that came up on Google), which is basically making the same points I am:

    http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html

    The journal article it references has more info about the heavy metals side:

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es071763q

    Then there's the PV plant in China that was shut down due to a pollutant leakage/spill:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/asia/china-shuts-solar-panel-factory-after-anti-pollution-protests.html

    What they don't say is that even if it doesn't leak, the waste materials have to be put somewhere.

    I'll say it again: I love solar. The pollution is a problem, but it's a manageable one; I just think it's wrong to deny that it exists. Denial won't make it go away. Better to accept, understand, and work to improve. And, on the consumer side, know what you're really buying into.
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #29
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    nobody here that i saw denied that there wasn't some pollution involved, but we dispute your statements saying the degree of pollution from pvs being worse than fossil or nuclear grid generation and your statement that it is worse to go to solar than to stay on the grid. these beliefs of yours are false. the small pollution footprint is negated in a few years for solar and that can't happen with grid generation and the pollution involved in just building the generation plant is so many times worse than that of solar. add to it the fossil fuels or nuclear fuels and it isn't funny how far worse most grid generation is. some utilities do use renewable sources and that is by far cleaner generation, but it isn't always cheaper generation and is primary as to why most don't employ it.
    · Share on Twitter
  • bill von novak
    bill von novak Solar Expert Posts: 891 ✭✭✭✭
    #30
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...
    AceNZ wrote: »
    But you just said above that it takes between one and three years to reach energy breakeven. That means, during that time, you have generated more pollution than you would have if you didn't use solar.

    That would be true if you considered two options:

    1) Solar power
    2) No power at all (freezing in the dark.)

    That is not the choice. The choice is:

    1) Solar power
    2) Utility power

    And in that case solar power wins. If, for example, you insist on including manufacturing energy and waste during the manufacture of the panels, you must also include the manufacture and pollution incurred when building the coal power plant, the pollution caused by its operation, the pollution and environmental damage caused by coal mining, the fuel and pollution involved in transporting coal etc. In that case solar comes out ahead from the get-go.
    Short-term pollution is higher, in the hope that long-term pollution will be lower.

    Short term pollution is lower compared to the alternatives.
    In the short run, right off the manufacturing line, they've required a bunch of pollution and energy to create and have returned precisely nothing.

    True of every power technology out there.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #31
    Options
    Re: Many in Hawaii now thinking about going Off-Grid...

    One aspect that has been overlooked is that solar electric is a new technology, whereas the fossil fuel plants have been going for over a century. As with any new product it is not going to be at its best or cheapest right away. Look at how much the equipment has improved and come down in price in the past ten years alone.

    So we have the situation where solar will become more practical and cleaner (as more energy is generated by solar the over-all pollution rate of electric power goes down, including that used to make the solar equipment) the more it is implemented. The biggest problem remains the same as always: being able to balance availability (supply) with demand. This is more difficult with solar because unlike a fossil fuel generator you can't switch PV on as needed.

    But someone has to be the pioneer and take the hit. That's the members of this forum and many others like them. :D
    · Share on Twitter

Categories