So, that is 8 million panels per year.....maybe ~1000 MW of PV just in Seattle Metro?? Sounds a little high?
Progress
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
So, that is 8 million panels per year.....maybe ~1000 MW of PV just in Seattle Metro?? Sounds a little high?
Another side effect of cheap PV....the death of the 'Passive House'?
An oldie from Holladay: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/net-zero-energy-versus-passivhaus
In current new construction, the lowest 'cost of ownership' option is to build a house with about half the insulation level of a Passive house (but still about 2-2.5x thicker than a current best code), put in all electric heat and DHW, and throw enough solar panels on the roof to get to Net Zero Energy, on a seasonal basis with a grid-tie system. IOW, the savings on the insulation and extra framing materials more than pay for enough PV to make up the difference in recurring energy costs, at today's prices. The amortized cost of the resulting NZE house is lower than passive house, due to lower construction costs, and also slightly lower than a code built house, due to lower utility bills for the 20-30 year life of the PV.
Think about it...a normal looking, mainstream, low maintenance house that adds no (net) energy usage to the grid, and uses no FF. This was a dream in the 70s, and now you can just go buy one. No muss no fuss.
In green circles the Passive/NZE wars have been raging for a few years now...the originator of the Passive Haus concept appears to be solidly against building less insulated houses + PV, despite them being cheaper, using less materials, and consuming less energy. In the US, there are multiple entities that certify Passive house, and some are moving towards NZE, some are not. So sad.
---------------------------------------------------
Of course the big issue was always legacy housing stock. In round figures, we can characterize thermal performance with a Home Heating Index (HHI) in units of BTU/sq.ft.HDD. Ten years ago, the median figure for US houses was 10, with a standard deviation of 3-4. Leaky old barn houses were 13-15, tight energy efficient houses were 7.
On this scale, Passive Houses are '1', needing just 10% as many BTUs as a typical 2004 US house (can 'heat with a hairdryer').
The sweet spot for NZE houses these days is '2', needing 2x as many BTUs as a Passive house.
In contrast, current best code houses (most states still use older codes) are about '5' or so, using half as much energy as typical houses in 2004.
In terms of retrofit, a typical US house might have been built at 15 before the 70s, or at 10 afterward. Many older houses were insulated in the 70s, going from 15 to ~10.
The good news:
The current 'airseal and upinsulate' retrofit work in the US can take most houses to the 5-7 range for $3-7k (often covered nearly 'free' by utility billing programs), and just a few days of work, and pays back in 5-10 years (if not subsidized). The resulting houses are much more comfortable, less drafty, healthier, have better humidity control summer and winter, and have better indoor air-quality (provided no indoor smokers or allergen sources).
The bad news:
Taking most US houses well below the 5-7 range, like 1-3, a 'deep energy retrofit', requires such extensive work that the cost can be $50-100k, and the payback is usually not there unless you assume a very long amortization and (usually) very expensive future energy. No new technology to fix this appears to be in the offing, as it requires destroying the entire interior or exterior detailing (or both) to do the work.
In energy circles, this seemed to put a floor under future home energy use....turning over all the housing stock in the US will take many decades, not 15-20 years, appearing to lock in a HUGE amount of FF demand/usage before 2100.
Progress:
Houses that have been (cheaply) airsealed/retrofit to the HHH= 5-7 range can be comfortably heated with affordable (<$10k retrofit) air-source heat pumps, at annual energy costs that are well below what many folks pay now (e.g. for oil or propane). While these houses are unlikely to become NZE houses (their roofs are too small by about half for the PV required to cover space heating/cooling or oops, point in the wrong direction), in a future PV+storage grid in the US, all these houses can be FF/CO2 free at reasonable cost (for retrofit and energy bills).
Of course, the above ASHP claim currently does not apply to folks with climates much colder than say, Boston, but still covers a significant majority of the US population. And the practical cold limits of ASHPs are still improving.
So, progress in modern ASHPs allows us to affordably 'decarbonize' most of US residential energy usage in existing houses when the PV gets built out, in perhaps as little as 15-20 years.
We won't get a 'Post Peak Oil' world where the lucky/smart/rich few are comfortably living in villages of 'resilient' Passive houses each heated by burning a small bundle of sticks, while the hoi polloi are freezing in their nearly unheated legacy houses in grubby coats.
Instead, folks will be able to safely and comfortably heat their existing houses, which have been retrofit to use efficient electrical heat (in many houses the 3rd or 4th different fuel since it was built), using effectively zero-carbon power (from off-site 'industrial' PV and grid storage), at a utility cost roughly comparable to the best late 20th century rates.
An oldie from Holladay: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/net-zero-energy-versus-passivhaus
In current new construction, the lowest 'cost of ownership' option is to build a house with about half the insulation level of a Passive house (but still about 2-2.5x thicker than a current best code), put in all electric heat and DHW, and throw enough solar panels on the roof to get to Net Zero Energy, on a seasonal basis with a grid-tie system. IOW, the savings on the insulation and extra framing materials more than pay for enough PV to make up the difference in recurring energy costs, at today's prices. The amortized cost of the resulting NZE house is lower than passive house, due to lower construction costs, and also slightly lower than a code built house, due to lower utility bills for the 20-30 year life of the PV.
Think about it...a normal looking, mainstream, low maintenance house that adds no (net) energy usage to the grid, and uses no FF. This was a dream in the 70s, and now you can just go buy one. No muss no fuss.
In green circles the Passive/NZE wars have been raging for a few years now...the originator of the Passive Haus concept appears to be solidly against building less insulated houses + PV, despite them being cheaper, using less materials, and consuming less energy. In the US, there are multiple entities that certify Passive house, and some are moving towards NZE, some are not. So sad.
---------------------------------------------------
Of course the big issue was always legacy housing stock. In round figures, we can characterize thermal performance with a Home Heating Index (HHI) in units of BTU/sq.ft.HDD. Ten years ago, the median figure for US houses was 10, with a standard deviation of 3-4. Leaky old barn houses were 13-15, tight energy efficient houses were 7.
On this scale, Passive Houses are '1', needing just 10% as many BTUs as a typical 2004 US house (can 'heat with a hairdryer').
The sweet spot for NZE houses these days is '2', needing 2x as many BTUs as a Passive house.
In contrast, current best code houses (most states still use older codes) are about '5' or so, using half as much energy as typical houses in 2004.
In terms of retrofit, a typical US house might have been built at 15 before the 70s, or at 10 afterward. Many older houses were insulated in the 70s, going from 15 to ~10.
The good news:
The current 'airseal and upinsulate' retrofit work in the US can take most houses to the 5-7 range for $3-7k (often covered nearly 'free' by utility billing programs), and just a few days of work, and pays back in 5-10 years (if not subsidized). The resulting houses are much more comfortable, less drafty, healthier, have better humidity control summer and winter, and have better indoor air-quality (provided no indoor smokers or allergen sources).
The bad news:
Taking most US houses well below the 5-7 range, like 1-3, a 'deep energy retrofit', requires such extensive work that the cost can be $50-100k, and the payback is usually not there unless you assume a very long amortization and (usually) very expensive future energy. No new technology to fix this appears to be in the offing, as it requires destroying the entire interior or exterior detailing (or both) to do the work.
In energy circles, this seemed to put a floor under future home energy use....turning over all the housing stock in the US will take many decades, not 15-20 years, appearing to lock in a HUGE amount of FF demand/usage before 2100.
Progress:
Houses that have been (cheaply) airsealed/retrofit to the HHH= 5-7 range can be comfortably heated with affordable (<$10k retrofit) air-source heat pumps, at annual energy costs that are well below what many folks pay now (e.g. for oil or propane). While these houses are unlikely to become NZE houses (their roofs are too small by about half for the PV required to cover space heating/cooling or oops, point in the wrong direction), in a future PV+storage grid in the US, all these houses can be FF/CO2 free at reasonable cost (for retrofit and energy bills).
Of course, the above ASHP claim currently does not apply to folks with climates much colder than say, Boston, but still covers a significant majority of the US population. And the practical cold limits of ASHPs are still improving.
So, progress in modern ASHPs allows us to affordably 'decarbonize' most of US residential energy usage in existing houses when the PV gets built out, in perhaps as little as 15-20 years.
We won't get a 'Post Peak Oil' world where the lucky/smart/rich few are comfortably living in villages of 'resilient' Passive houses each heated by burning a small bundle of sticks, while the hoi polloi are freezing in their nearly unheated legacy houses in grubby coats.
Instead, folks will be able to safely and comfortably heat their existing houses, which have been retrofit to use efficient electrical heat (in many houses the 3rd or 4th different fuel since it was built), using effectively zero-carbon power (from off-site 'industrial' PV and grid storage), at a utility cost roughly comparable to the best late 20th century rates.
Last edited:
It did to me too. I asked for his source, haven't heard back yet. I guess that could just be the current rate of installation and not a year round average. His company is going like gangbusters.
We'll be lucky if our house is a 10. I've tightened it up a lot, but there are core construction issues that would require pulling the siding and then residing to address. The ASHP is an excellent choice in our environment. If I built new I would solar site the house and take advantage of winter passive solar gains. There are a lot of good common sense designs that don't heat overload. Personally I'd rather have a passive solar design that can breathe a bit more than an air tight box depending on HRV to make it habitable.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Maybe my calculation is in error, but here goes for BTU/sq.ft.HDD for our 1956 single story house with full basement: new windows, mostly new wall insulation at 6" fiberglass, some at 3.5", and some wall original with 1"+/- stuff, well insulated attic. House has SW exposure with good passive solar through the windows fall, winter, spring.
1500 sq ft main level + 1500 sq ft basement = 3000 sq ft of energy space
Total energy usage: 4 cords of aspen/year space heating = 13,700,000 cord x 4 = 54.800,000 btu
Plus for all electric house, except for wood heat = 12,000 kwh/yr x 3412 = 4,094,400 btu
Total 58,900,000 btu
HDD about 9000 (balance point 65F, which is about what we do), some years higher, some lower
BTU/sq.ft.HDD = 58,900,000 btu / 3000 sq ft / 9000 = 2.18 BTU/sq.ft.HDD
Pretty good for a legacy stock house.
Our goal is NZE by reducing to 9000 kwh/yr, which we estimate will be provided by the 6.5kw PV, will add some active solar hot air for the basement to reduce electric heat needed for the basement, and continue with wood heat which is NZE. Since we already have done a lot to reduce kwh, moving from 12,000 to 9,000 will be a challenge.
1500 sq ft main level + 1500 sq ft basement = 3000 sq ft of energy space
Total energy usage: 4 cords of aspen/year space heating = 13,700,000 cord x 4 = 54.800,000 btu
Plus for all electric house, except for wood heat = 12,000 kwh/yr x 3412 = 4,094,400 btu
Total 58,900,000 btu
HDD about 9000 (balance point 65F, which is about what we do), some years higher, some lower
BTU/sq.ft.HDD = 58,900,000 btu / 3000 sq ft / 9000 = 2.18 BTU/sq.ft.HDD
Pretty good for a legacy stock house.
Our goal is NZE by reducing to 9000 kwh/yr, which we estimate will be provided by the 6.5kw PV, will add some active solar hot air for the basement to reduce electric heat needed for the basement, and continue with wood heat which is NZE. Since we already have done a lot to reduce kwh, moving from 12,000 to 9,000 will be a challenge.
jharkin
Minister of Fire
I bet you are doing better than that BeGreen. My house is a lot older and with a lot of airsealing and blown in insulation Ive got the calculated energy use over the winter down to around 11BTU/ft2*HDD on a gross bases, or almost 9 on a net basis after stack losses. This is with relatively inneficient heat sources - an 83AFUE gas boiler and the woodstove thats realistically not much over 70%.
I could get that a little bit better if I ripped out the antique steam heat system and put something more modern in... but thats about it. Any more gains would mean destroying what little historic character the house has left and at that point you might as well tear down
When I moved in we were over 15.
jharkin
Minister of Fire
BTW... thanks all of you for a very interesting read - one of the best threads Ive read in a while.
That's not unique to the west. You know that most of our forest here on the east coast is second growth. Part of my interest in early American history has my wife and I pouring over old books and photos how this town looked earlier in the history of my house. We are basically in the woods today, but a picture from the 1880s of our neighborhood you cant see a tree for miles - its all farmland. Most of the first growth forest on the east coast was cut before the civil war to build houses, ship lumber back to England, fuel peoples homes etc. And those old forests where nothing like today - they where full of giant oaks and white pines that towered to 200ft+, aka "King's trees" that were taken to be used as Royal Navy masts.
I remember reading someplace that if we burn all the fossils we will naturally return the climate to the way it was before they got buried. Which I believe was a time of tropical rainforests at the poles and mosquitos the size of bald eagles; right? I hear climate skeptics argue - so what, that sounds nice" Im not so sure ....
That's not unique to the west. You know that most of our forest here on the east coast is second growth. Part of my interest in early American history has my wife and I pouring over old books and photos how this town looked earlier in the history of my house. We are basically in the woods today, but a picture from the 1880s of our neighborhood you cant see a tree for miles - its all farmland. Most of the first growth forest on the east coast was cut before the civil war to build houses, ship lumber back to England, fuel peoples homes etc. And those old forests where nothing like today - they where full of giant oaks and white pines that towered to 200ft+, aka "King's trees" that were taken to be used as Royal Navy masts.
I remember reading someplace that if we burn all the fossils we will naturally return the climate to the way it was before they got buried. Which I believe was a time of tropical rainforests at the poles and mosquitos the size of bald eagles; right? I hear climate skeptics argue - so what, that sounds nice" Im not so sure ....
Our house was attacked by yuppies in the mid-80s that sucked the character out of the house and made it a sheetrock palace, complete with McDonalds style huge picture windows. The house now has a true foundation, sits 3 ft higher, has most trim restored and some nice details added. We have replaced the picture windows with 3 window assemblies, laid oak floors and staircase, and rebuilt the upstairs to have a central bath and 3 real bedrooms (There were two before with a bathroom larger than the living room, complete with 80 gallon tub!) At each stage I have sealed walls that we opened and have had insulation blown in. But still there is leakage due to a dropped ceiling, recessed cans up the wazoo, and no wind wrap on the house, just clapboards over the sheathing. I haven't calculated the BTUs per sq ft, but they are a huge leap lower from when we moved in. Replacing the propane furnace with a good heat pump helped a whole lot with the bottom line heating bill.
Indeed not. A whole lot of the eastern US was clearcut and farmland. I believe there is more forest there now than there was in 1900. Virgin forests are now rare, but second and third growth is common. Where I live was completely clearcut around the turn of the century. Virgin fir was prime wood for local shipbuilding. In place large farms developed. Now it is returning to forest. When we first moved here we had a great view to the north. 20 years later it is mostly tree obscured. Some returning big doug firs are already over 100 ft tall.
http://www.slideshare.net/WorldResources/virgin-forests-southern-usa
Last edited:
semipro
Minister of Fire
You have to be careful of terminology when talking forests. Lumber companies frequently brag that there are more trees in today's forests than there were in 1960 (or some other time).
More trees yes, but of what size. More forest yes, but of what board-feet per acre. And so on.
Like so many things, quality does matter and the devil is in the details.
More trees yes, but of what size. More forest yes, but of what board-feet per acre. And so on.
Like so many things, quality does matter and the devil is in the details.
More progress in solar. Their current cells are at 35.5% efficiency, goal >50%. I love it.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/529651/stacking-cells-could-make-solar-as-cheap-as-natural-gas/
http://semprius.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/529651/stacking-cells-could-make-solar-as-cheap-as-natural-gas/
http://semprius.com/
I remember reading someplace that if we burn all the fossils we will naturally return the climate to the way it was before they got buried. Which I believe was a time of tropical rainforests at the poles and mosquitos the size of bald eagles; right? I hear climate skeptics argue - so what, that sounds nice" Im not so sure ....
On long time scales, volcanoes release CO2 (at a rate << than humans industry), which gets sunk into both fossil carbonate shells and fossil hydrocarbons, both process happening largely in the oceans.
Long ago, when the Sun was younger and dimmer, the Earth's oceans used to sometimes freeze over all the way to the equator, often for very long periods of time, called the 'Snowball Earth' state. Current thinking is that this stable frozen state (ice reflects sunlight away) was eventually broken by the slow accumulation of volcanic CO2 to high levels...since the ocean was frozen over, it couldn't sink that carbon. Eventually, when the ice started to melt, the high CO2 greenhouse effect + dark ocean absorber would whiplash the whole planet up to a very warm, potentially even ice free state in relatively little time. Then the CO2 would drop back down and things would settle down for a while.
Last edited:
Seasoned Oak
Minister of Fire
We could have easily saved out own domestic solar companies with a more aggressive approach on cheap foreign dumping of less then cost panels. Mainly by china. They accomplished just what they intended which was to dominate the world market.
Large entrenched energy systems are holding up progress here. Coal-fired states in particular are heel dragging.
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/why-sunshine-state-saying-no-solar-power.html
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/why-sunshine-state-saying-no-solar-power.html
Where2
Feeling the Heat
Yup, that's just the tip of the ice berg. We've had two editorial pieces in print recently in Florida explaining how bad solar and net metering is...
Meanwhile, all my friends across America and my co-workers would gladly trade electric bills with me. $47.07 for July with over 120 hours of run time on my 3.5 ton A/C unit. That's with a little 4.4kW array. After spending $460 total to heat/cool and run my all electric house the past 12 months, I wouldn't own another property without a PV system. The sun comes up: it works.
Frozen Canuck
Minister of Fire
You are kidding right? We get flyers with the monthly bills from our utility asking if we would like to install solar all the way up here. Just has to be a faster payoff in south fl rather than northern Alberta. Tough to justify up here with current costs, down there no brainer.
Where2
Feeling the Heat
Wish I was kidding, but here are the two links...
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...718_1_solar-panels-net-metering-electric-grid
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/op...gail-maciver-robbing-peter-pay-paul/13746861/
Contrary to the second link, the State of Florida didn't kick in a dime toward my PV system. We're the "Sunshine State" in nickname only. Please don't remind me how much $$$ I spent getting a Florida Solar Energy Center PV system certification (NEC 2011 review) that is only required by and only valid in the State of Florida. Having the Florida Solar Energy Center PV System certification paperwork certainly greased the wheels of my local building department. The building official did a quick web query to determine my FSEC PV certification was legit (meaning the design was NEC 2011 compliant), then simply had to determine whether the signed and sealed professional structural engineering documents I submitted with my building permit application where genuine. The structural engineering documents indicate my array will withstand a 3-second gust of 170mph (274kph) from a hurricane. All in, I've got more than $1000 in paperwork which collects no sunshine and generates no energy.
Looking forward to building an array at 45.9°N. The array at 26.8°N collected 6MWh last year.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Just an observation, I am not a stakeholder in wind power, but that industry does not seem dead. According to this report it too will see more than a doubling in 4 years from ~3% to >7% of the world's electrical power.
Wind Power Will Deliver More Than 7 Percent of the World’s Electricity by 2018
Headwinds in several key markets, including the United States and Spain slowed growth in the global wind power market dramatically in 2013. Still, wind power now supplies nearly 3 percent of the world’s electricity, and is expected to grow strongly over the next several years. According to a recent report from Navigant Research, wind power will deliver 7.3 percent of the electricity consumed worldwide by 2018.
“Last year was the first in which the wind industry experienced negative growth since 2004, but there are signs that the 2013 slowdown will turn out to be an anomaly,” says Feng Zhao, research director with Navigant Research. “As wind turbine vendors search for new opportunities in emerging markets, primarily in Latin America and Africa, and develop machines for maximum energy production in low wind speed areas, the industry is expected to add another 250 gigawatts of capacity through 2018.”
http://www.navigantresearch.com/research/world-market-update-2013
Wind Power Will Deliver More Than 7 Percent of the World’s Electricity by 2018
Headwinds in several key markets, including the United States and Spain slowed growth in the global wind power market dramatically in 2013. Still, wind power now supplies nearly 3 percent of the world’s electricity, and is expected to grow strongly over the next several years. According to a recent report from Navigant Research, wind power will deliver 7.3 percent of the electricity consumed worldwide by 2018.
“Last year was the first in which the wind industry experienced negative growth since 2004, but there are signs that the 2013 slowdown will turn out to be an anomaly,” says Feng Zhao, research director with Navigant Research. “As wind turbine vendors search for new opportunities in emerging markets, primarily in Latin America and Africa, and develop machines for maximum energy production in low wind speed areas, the industry is expected to add another 250 gigawatts of capacity through 2018.”
http://www.navigantresearch.com/research/world-market-update-2013
IF you want to geek out for a hour, you can watch the Tesla CTO's keynote talk about stationary energy storage. Last 20 mins are Q&A.
IMHO, Tesla the company (much like Tesla the man) is a rare combo of genuine innovation, leveraged by first class PR that shades into BS. The CTO talk above, is short on PR, and long on their current plans for the coming PV revolution, including the infamous 'duck graph', relevant for this thread, starting at ~27 mins.
IMHO, Tesla the company (much like Tesla the man) is a rare combo of genuine innovation, leveraged by first class PR that shades into BS. The CTO talk above, is short on PR, and long on their current plans for the coming PV revolution, including the infamous 'duck graph', relevant for this thread, starting at ~27 mins.
Last edited:
Storage is key no matter what the source of energy. Without significant snow accumulation in the mountains and dams hydro would be cyclical as well. Practical stationary electrical storage will make solar and wind much more feasible. But will it be lithium-ion (or other rare earth metal) based as it appears Tesla is developing or lower cost and common material flow battery tech?
--Li is not a rare earth element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element but is the 25th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, about the same as Cl.
--Li-ion batteries only contain ~1 lb of Li per kWh of storage, my LEAF only contains ~20 lbs of Li in a 500 lb battery.
--IIRC Nickel is one of the more massive and costly components (and rarer than Li).
It would appear that Tesla thinks there may be a value proposition in Li-ion stationary storage. Or you could look at their currently fielded efforts (residential w/Solar City, Supercharger stations and at Fremont) as research projects getting real world data/experience.
Of course, if Tesla thought some of the flow battery tech was a winner, they prob have enough cash and motivation to buy it and develop it themselves. Perhaps they don't have enough expertise with elctrochemistry (yet) to make that call reliably with a new technology.
At $100/kWh_capacity and 2000 'cycles', you are at a reasonable 5 cents/kWh stored. Current costs are ~$300/kWh, but there are no real publically available figures. At 1 cycle per day, 2000 days is 5.5 years, not bad for financing/payback. An expensive 10000 cycle battery would last 27 years, but financing would kill you.
Last edited:
I stand corrected, I thought lithium was in short supply for batteries in the US last year. Looks like that has turned around with recent supplies in Wyoming being discovered.
- Status
Similar threads
