SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least 1 million homes in the USA have solar systems on their rooftops and their use — together with local batteries — is increasing, enabling homeowners the ability to collect energy and store it for later usage on-site. This enables homeowners to cut their dependence on the electrical grid — and their bills. This could be economically painful for utilities. A new McKinsey study predicts two outcomes 1) electrical grid cut off completely 2) primarily local energy collection with the electrical grid as a backup.
The cost of collecting solar energy and storing it on-site makes the incentive too small even for residents of sunny Arizona to cut the electrical grid off. But partial defection from the grid with 80-90% of the demand supplied on-site makes economic sense in 2020 and total defection makes sense around 2028
The prediction by McKinsey is that the electrical grid will be repurposed as an enormous, sophisticated backup. One, where utilities only add energy at those times when the on-site systems aren't collecting enough energy.
My comment: So far good enough. But then why not simple connect to neighbors directly for electrical power transfer and cutting the utilities out of the loop even for electrical fallback needs? A electrical power mesh grid might need some interesting mathematical modeling though.
(As a side note, maybe this will soon make UPS for home use obsolete?)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:38PM (7 children)
It's pretty interesting to see this stuff about the challenges of solar. I had a friend that lived with his family in Golden Valley, AZ (look on maps and imagine minus 15 years) near the hill towards Bullhead. They were too poor and out-of-the-way that they had to use a water tank and had their own solar panels. Guy was out there using a squeegee to clean them every day. It was also not massive efficiency since it was on the roof of a small trailer. But they managed to power their lights, a tiny TV and AC (though they had a generator too).
I think people underestimate the livability of off-grid solar currently. People have done it and continue to do so. It's just that it's not magic. It's about 80% less work than peddling a bike or crank but there's still a 20% there somewhere. Maintenance is fucking crazy town and you can't power your computer, AC, TV, xbox, gamecube and whatever. But unfortunately we will probably always be constrained by physics and surface area.
Also, I like the usage of "sunny AZ" like it's Orange County and you're out there frolicking in the green orchards to the tune of hobbit flutes. Naaaaaah
But yeah considering the above and the no doubt massive advances in return on surface area since then I think the idea in summary - the commie solution - would not be bad. Like seriously if the guys above (rural as it gets) managed to make it livable an efficient setup should make it work. Mesh is not one of those setups. But I like the topological thinking.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:54PM
Some people already cope with electricity, gas or water piped to their household.
They cope with sewage, fresh water, telephones or local police forces.
The problem is not "it can't be done" but "it's not practical to do HERE", or even "people won't do it here".
That translates to everything from not working well enough in other parts of the world, to not supplying basic needs, to not actually having less of an impact (e.g. shipping all that equipment to an off-grid setup on the back of series of diesel trucks, etc.), to people not wanting to live in a low-power household (e.g. a tumble dryer or dishwasher, etc.).
When you trade-off the costs and hassle and maintenance, against actually not living in the back woods chopping up firewood to boil up a kettle, most people will move away from such solutions. The fact that we've got this far as a civilisation means that - of course - NONE of those things are necessary, not even electricity in any form. But people aren't living on the boundary of necessary in first-world countries. They are way past that. Asking them to sacrifice it for inconvenience and a possible future effect that may make little overall difference to them or their family, is really overly optimistic.
You can try to educate, and try to inform, and try to prove that such actions may be necessary so that future generations don't suffer, but that's an uphill struggle and few will heed such things anyway.
It's about finding a trade-off that people will accept, and most people have already decided the point that they will accept, and it's higher than people would like. Solar panels have a LONG way to go before they start affecting that decision - the same as electric cars, etc.
No amount of technology is going to make someone lose some quality of life, in their perception. The problem is convincing them to accept that trade-off, or getting technology to the point that it isn't a trade-off.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday July 01 2017, @10:04PM (4 children)
But as people move towards electric vehicles, moving off grid isn't going to be practical. I have solar panels and there is no way we could go off-grid in winter. Summer, perhaps, with a large battery and some lifestyle adjustments. Winter? No way.
What might make going off grid practical is combined heat and power systems, or perhaps a fuel cell running off natural gas (or some other energy source).
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday July 01 2017, @11:57PM (2 children)
Are there comparisons between a typical house's needs and what an electric vehicle can store? Could an electric vehicle be used as additional capacity, or would battery technology have to change dramatically/ludicrously before that happens?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday July 02 2017, @03:38AM
I don't think it is a dramatic change. Home storage needs to be cheap, reliable and maintenance-free, but most people don't care about size and weight (within reason). Do you really care whether that block attached to the back or side of your house occupies 2 or 4 cubic metres, and whether it weighs one or four tonnes? I don't. I do care about how much it costs and how long it lasts and how safe it is.
Lithium is the wrong tech for stationary storage.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday July 02 2017, @07:37AM
Expect a 10-20kWh/day as an average, if you don't switch on your electric oven or AC.
A Tesla car battery will see you through 3-5days. Probably, you'll need 12kW peak power worth of installed PV panels; given that PV will shed about 15-20% efficiency in the first 2-3years, you'll need 15kW installed solar power to begin with. And a lot of sunny days, or else don't disconnect from the grid.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday July 02 2017, @03:29AM
Solar power in AU is 3, 4 or 5 kW usually. Occasionally 8. Most of the roofs I see it on would have enough space to easily double the size of the panels. The main problem would be that power is mostly generated during the day, when the car is parked at work. What is needed is easily swappable batteries, or a home storage system cheap and efficient enough to use.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday July 01 2017, @11:48PM
The problem with "off the grid" is storage. If you're using solar panels, then you need to store power for night time use, and if you're using electrical heating for use in case of, e.g., snowstorms. This is do-able, but it can get expensive. So many people also have a generator if they live in a remote area.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.