I've had an idea for a while now that I think would be a great project for a group like TerraPass. I thought I would put it in the heap and let the masses rip it to shreds ;)

They should install solar power (and wind if someone has the room) on people's property. The person pays nothing. Now, their power usage is still measured and they pay a discounted rate for their power (figuring that number out would take a little math, but it would be a fixed rate that grows only with inflation). The group would also be paid for the extra power put back on the grid. If someone used more power than was produced by their system, they would pay full price for that power.

The money paid by the person for the power is used to maintain the equipment and the excess is used to buy more equipment for more people. I know it would be a slow process (depending on the original investment, it could possible take up to a couple hundred years to convert the united states population), but its growth is exponential.

At some point (when enough revenue was being generated), larger power stations could be built. My only concern (which I haven't researched) is the land needed to be acquired to convert the majority of the nation over to renewable energy. That is why I like the roofs and yards of America providing power. One wasted space that I would think could provide a lot of power is the roofs of schools, factories, and any large commercial building.

Now, tell me what is dumb about this idea. Don't hold back, I really want to know.

There are people - grant it, not many - who have solar power on their houses and then sell back to the power company if they produce more then they use.

I totally 100% support the idea of building rooftops especially. The power company where I come from does this:

http://www.epcor.ca/Citizenship/Renewable+Energy/EPCORsInterest.htm

EPCOR has four renewable energy facilities that it owns or supports through investment and power purchase:

Whitecourt Generating Station (biomass)
Weather Dancer Wind Turbine (wind power) - 50% ownership
Taylor Coulee Hydroelectric Plant (low-impact hydropower) - 50% ownership
EPCOR Centre solar roof panels (solar power) - 100% ownership

Their main building is solar panelled on the roof :)

I've had an idea for a while now that I think would be a great project for a group like TerraPass. I thought I would put it in the heap and let the masses rip it to shreds ;)

They should install solar power (and wind if someone has the room) on people's property. The person pays nothing. Now, their power usage is still measured and they pay a discounted rate for their power (figuring that number out would take a little math, but it would be a fixed rate that grows only with inflation). The group would also be paid for the extra power put back on the grid. If someone used more power than was produced by their system, they would pay full price for that power.

The money paid by the person for the power is used to maintain the equipment and the excess is used to buy more equipment for more people. I know it would be a slow process (depending on the original investment, it could possible take up to a couple hundred years to convert the united states population), but its growth is exponential.

At some point (when enough revenue was being generated), larger power stations could be built. My only concern (which I haven't researched) is the land needed to be acquired to convert the majority of the nation over to renewable energy. That is why I like the roofs and yards of America providing power. One wasted space that I would think could provide a lot of power is the roofs of schools, factories, and any large commercial building.

Now, tell me what is dumb about this idea. Don't hold back, I really want to know.

I don't think it is stupid at all. I took a class last quarter called "Energy and Society" and we did some group projects and my group studied small scale power generation. I think this type of model is completely feasible but nobody wants to spend the money.

A little OT, but there is some pretty exciting solar technology around the corner. Within two or three years building integrated photo-voltaic cells should be available. These will be, for example, roofing tiles or shingles that function as PV cells. There will also be a semi-transparent PV product that can be used on the exterior of office buildings.

I agree about the shingle PV cells idea; that is very exciting.

I don't think it is stupid at all. I took a class last quarter called "Energy and Society" and we did some group projects and my group studied small scale power generation. I think this type of model is completely feasible but nobody wants to spend the money.

Thanks. The money is obviously the killer. That is why some group that is getting an income would have to dedicate themselves to a project like this. Even then, anything short of millions a year will provide for very slow growth.

A little OT, but there is some pretty exciting solar technology around the corner. Within two or three years building integrated photo-voltaic cells should be available. These will be, for example, roofing tiles or shingles that function as PV cells. There will also be a semi-transparent PV product that can be used on the exterior of office buildings.

That is awesome stuff. That along with solar sterling engines should hopefully continue to increase and ease and affordability of small scale solar power.

I agree about the shingle PV cells idea; that is very exciting.
Are'nt shingles painful and contagious?

There are people - grant it, not many - who have solar power on their houses and then sell back to the power company if they produce more then they use.

I totally 100% support the idea of building rooftops especially. The power company where I come from does this:

http://www.epcor.ca/Citizenship/Renewable+Energy/EPCORsInterest.htm



Their main building is solar panelled on the roof :)

Great company! :) I know someone who has never had their batteries run dry in over a year now, so they have only contributed to the grid, never taken from it. I think it is wonderful, but I don't have the money to put that kind of system in. That is where the idea of me paying less for power and only giving up some roof space came from.

Not the ones that go on your house, dude.

Solar, solar, solar!! Why is everyone SOOOoo in love with solar? LUNAR power is the way of the future!!

:sunny:

The Rev

There was an article in Wired (probably available at the library) a month or two ago on the increasing popularity of home solar power, where the owner pays to install, but with a fair number of tax incentives it's become less expensive, has a battery bank to store about 6 days worth of power, pays for what the consume off the grid, and is credited for what they put back into the grid. You might find it interesting.

There was an article in Wired (probably available at the library) a month or two ago on the increasing popularity of home solar power, where the owner pays to install, but with a fair number of tax incentives it's become less expensive, has a battery bank to store about 6 days worth of power, pays for what the consume off the grid, and is credited for what they put back into the grid. You might find it interesting.

i think there are too many technical barriers to make this practical on a large scale basis, given the inefficiency of solar panels, the difficulty of storing electricity efficiently, and the expense of maintaining the system. not to mention the capitalization costs. some technologies, such as solar water heating, are quite workable, especially in climates with intense sunlight. i'm fascinated by the idea. when recent improvements in photocells hit the market in a big way, a lot more might become viable.

one of the newer things i've seen is using fiber optics to transfer sunlight indoors, to cut the expense of lighting. this has a lot of potential to save energy on a nationwide basis, especially in large buildings.

when i build a house, i've decided to use the styrofoam blocks that you pour concrete into. with all the new materials/technologies available, i'm hoping to build the ultimate in environmentally friendly living. it would be great to live off the grid, though i don't think it's practical ... i'd still like to take it as far as i can.

I know people with solar panels that regularly get paid for the excess energy they, um harness... I'm not sure of the proper verb for that.

I would love to have solar panels on my home when I get one. :)

Especially here in Southern California this sounds like a good idea. We've got sun 99% of the time. I just don't know who would front the money for the panels.

i think there are too many technical barriers to make this practical on a large scale basis, given the inefficiency of solar panels, the difficulty of storing electricity efficiently, and the expense of maintaining the system. not to mention the capitalization costs.

I would make the assumption electrical storage would not be addressed yet. The excess power during peak sunlight hours would simply be sold back to the power company (as many do right now). That credit with the power company would be used to buy power at night. Someday storage would have to be addressed, but not for a long time.

As for as ineffeciency and the expense of maintaining the systems, I always understood that the vast majority of solar power costs was the initial investment. So, that links it back to your last issue. That is the whole point of this system. While solar isn't very cost effective right now (for most people), this system absorbs the initial cost. And, obviously, as new technology comes along, it will be used to make everything more cost effective and grow the program faster.

The only real problem is time. The higher the inital investment, the faster things go. I'm sure that some money could be raised for a program like this. How much will directly determine how fast it grows.

Plus remember, this isn't designed to get homes completely "off the grid" right now, but provide a partial source of cheaper power in exchange for some roof space, or any other space that isn't being used.

I like the idea of grid tie-in systems, but for myself, I think I can only afford a few panels and can't afford all the inverters, etc needed for a grid tie-in system.

I'm not sure a single windmill or a single rooftop of solar panels would be sufficient to power one home...but I could be wrong about that. I honestly don't know how much power each of those methods generates.

Everyone is talking about solar power, but let's not forget wind, people. A couple of small wind turbines on a residential property wouldn't be any more of an eyesore or risk to wildlife than a television antenna (remember those?), and unlike solar power wind works 24/7, even in cloudy climates.

I would make the assumption electrical storage would not be addressed yet. The excess power during peak sunlight hours would simply be sold back to the power company (as many do right now). That credit with the power company would be used to buy power at night. Someday storage would have to be addressed, but not for a long time.

As for as ineffeciency and the expense of maintaining the systems, I always understood that the vast majority of solar power costs was the initial investment. So, that links it back to your last issue. That is the whole point of this system. While solar isn't very cost effective right now (for most people), this system absorbs the initial cost. And, obviously, as new technology comes along, it will be used to make everything more cost effective and grow the program faster.

The only real problem is time. The higher the inital investment, the faster things go. I'm sure that some money could be raised for a program like this. How much will directly determine how fast it grows.

Plus remember, this isn't designed to get homes completely "off the grid" right now, but provide a partial source of cheaper power in exchange for some roof space, or any other space that isn't being used.

i think if the idea was viable economically, it would be happening in droves, especially in sunlight intense areas. also, time is an issue due to the life of solar panels. i believe they need to be replaced every 10 years. improved technologies may change that.

Some solar panels are warranted for 25 years.

In order for solar to be practical to power a house, one needs to cut way down on electric use, usually this means having to buy special appliances, which are unfortunately very expensive.

Here's a good site for looking at models and prices for PV panels and solar appliances.

http://www.realgoods.com/

Some solar panels are warranted for 25 years.

In order for solar to be practical to power a house, one needs to cut way down on electric use, usually this means having to buy special appliances, which are unfortunately very expensive.

Here's a good site for looking at models and prices for PV panels and solar appliances.

http://www.realgoods.com/

very impressive product :). it would be fantastic to be off the gird.

i think if the idea was viable economically, it would be happening in droves, especially in sunlight intense areas. also, time is an issue due to the life of solar panels. i believe they need to be replaced every 10 years. improved technologies may change that.

Obviously this process would start in sun intensive areas. Hopefully technology will improve (I'm thinking of solar sterling engines), and make it more viable in other areas.

Remember, though, we aren't talking off the grid, so we don't need to create enough power to completely power their house. This starts as a power/cost reduction idea.

Basically, in the beginning (with current technology), you will probably get little to no money from the current customers, but the program would grow from the external funding. The external funding is necissary. It would generate profit, from the numbers I have seen (solar is cost effective in certain areas), but it is small with a huge investment. That is why people don't do it.

one problem that i've *heard of* with wind energy is that it can kill off a lot of birds..i dont know if this is true or not..if anyone could shed some light

Obviously this process would start in sun intensive areas. Hopefully technology will improve (I'm thinking of solar sterling engines), and make it more viable in other areas.

Remember, though, we aren't talking off the grid, so we don't need to create enough power to completely power their house. This starts as a power/cost reduction idea.

Basically, in the beginning (with current technology), you will probably get little to no money from the current customers, but the program would grow from the external funding. The external funding is necissary. It would generate profit, from the numbers I have seen (solar is cost effective in certain areas), but it is small with a huge investment. That is why people don't do it.

it depends on whose figures you accept. i've seen everything from "it costs the same as fossil fuel energy" to "it's 4 times more expensive".

we can only hope technology improves to make this a more economically viable alternative. i'm sure we're all agreed that fossil fuels are ruining this planet. it's not just about money. fossil fuel based energy is a dead end road.

governments are trying to ecourage investment with tax credits, but i don't see this hitting mass production until technology improves. in 20 years, perhaps every home will have solar panels.