Where does your electricity come from?
Displaying poll results.33157 total votes.
Where does your electricity come from?
How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.
nuclear, unless... (Score:3, Funny)
Some guy at some substation does the wrong thing, and then half my state and the ones next door go dark
Re:nuclear, unless... (Score:5, Funny)
That meandering nincompoop in sector 7G is at it again, eh Smithers?
nuclear: very bright? (Score:3)
Some guy at some substation does the wrong thing, and then half my state and the ones next door go dark
or perhaps you mean, very very BRIGHT!
I have no idea (Score:5, Informative)
I have no idea, and anyone "on the grid" who claims to know is fooling themselves.
There is both a nuclear power plant and a windmill farm within reasonable driving distance of my house. This being Illinois, I assume there are coal-fired generating plants as well.
How am I to know where ComEd got the electrons they sent down my wires?
It's all a big interconnected system. Even if you're paying some special "wind power" or "solar power" rate to supposedly get "green" energy you don't know where it really came from.
Re:I have no idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you're paying some special "wind power" or "solar power" rate to supposedly get "green" energy you don't know where it really came from.
The idea of "green rates" has always baffled me. It's not like you can verify they're not just lying to you to get you to pay more. It's like a "sucker's tax".
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Interesting)
We pay extra to get power from renewable sources. The money goes directly to a company which only operates and builds up renewable energy sources. Of course we actually get power from our local utility, but each kWh we use is actually delivered into the German/European power grid somewhere from regenerative power sources.
Of course, since the plants (wind, mostly) are already built, their power would end up in the network anyway. But this way, the huge and pretty horrible ex-state monopolies don't get any of our money (the local utility company is publicly owned), and instead a company which invests into renewables gets most of it.
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Informative)
If you live in Germany (as I do), you'd be surprised to learn that almost 100% of your "regenerative power sources" that you pay for are Norwegian dams.
I thought my money would go to solar panels, windmills and biomass power plants in our neighborhood.
You can take at look at the website of your electricity provider (EWS, Greenpeace energy, whatever,..) and get more info about it.
Re: (Score:3)
So if we got our electricity from sources with a death rate of 1 death per GWy, that would mean the British electricity supply system was killing 45 people per year. For comparison, 3000 people die per year on Britain’s roads. So, if you are not campaigning for the abolition of roads, you may deduce that “1 death per GWy” is a death rate that, while sad, you might be content to live with.
According to the EU figures, coal, lignite, and oil have the highest death rates, followed by peat and biomass-power, with death rates above 1 per GWy. Nuclear and wind are the best, with death rates below 0.2 per GWy. Hydroelectricity is the best of all according to the EU study, but comes out worst in the Paul Scherrer Institute’s study, because the latter surveyed a different set of countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that?
I recall reading an abstract from a study done here in Sweden that showed that green rates lead to new investment. More research needs to be done, of course, but the basic concept seems sound. It's not as if it matters what's coming out of your wall socket. You could for example be directly plugged into a coal plant owned by Power Company X and yet have all your payments (minus distribution costs) go to the wind power branch of Power Company X, thus supporting their wind power.
There's a
Re:I have no idea (Score:4, Informative)
OK, here's what I do. I pay about 8 per kilowatt hour for my electricity. It doesn't matter where it comes from. I also pay 1.5 per kilowatt hour so that the electric company buys a kilowatt hour of renewable energy. It doesn't have to be bought at the same time as I use it, just some time. Specifically excluded from the program are certain types of renewable energy (like large hydroelectric dams) and ones that have been around for a long time - they are instead required to buy wind and solar from generation sites that first started commercial operation after 1996.
The point is that this then creates a market for the renewable energy, and encourages more to be built, because customers are willing to pay a premium for it (and thus the electric company will pay a premium for it too, if they have to). The more people that sign up, the more renewable energy they have to buy. (Granted, the infrastructure does not yet exist for them to have 100% of customers on green power - but there's plenty of people that will never pay a penny more than they absolutely have to.)
My local power company is already fairly green; over 40% of the energy they buy is some sort of renewable energy. (About 30% is from an unknown source, and the other 30% is coal and natural gas.) But by paying a little extra (on average, about $3 per month), it means they buy an extra 0.0000005% (yes, I checked) of their total power from a known renewable source. Every year, they are legally required to tell me what I paid for (last year, 95% wind and 5% solar), and where it came from. Sucker tax this ain't.
Re: (Score:3)
That, or well-informed. For my power company (Austin Energy)? 44% coal, 31% nuclear, 21% natural gas, 4% renewables.
It's not like these things aren't recorded and tracked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except utilities sell electricity to each other.
You know that, if it was generated by Austin Energy, you got that breakdown. You don't actually know.
Re:I have no idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Funny)
You do realize that the electrons are interchangeable, and once they start pushing around the system it is of no consequence where or what grid they came from?
No, electrons from coal or oil are "dirty electrons", and if your appliances use too many of them, you'll turn into an evil businessman and you'll be responsible for the Muppets losing their homes.
Electrons from solar or wind power are excited into a different quantum energy shell, reserved only for clean fuel. These are referred to by scientists as "happy electrons". By using them, you'll be able to channel the life-force of the planet, which will lead to a longer and more fulfilling life.
Electrons from NiMH and Li-ion batteries are okay in limited quantities also. They are produced by rare minerals that only exist in limited quantities, and they are dug out of the ground by poor Chinese people, but they can be recycled, and choosing to recycle is always a guaranteed way to build up karma.
It's amazing how little some of you on Slashdot know about science. I'll bet you're American!
Re:I have no idea (Score:4, Funny)
...dug out of the ground by poor Chinese people, but they can be recycled...
All people are recycled, not just the Chinese
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You kid, but... http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/new-green-energy-source-burning-dead-bodies/ [sayanythingblog.com]
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have no idea (Score:4, Funny)
Very nice bit of trivia. AC power recycles electrons locally. How green!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So? I don't care what it is at any given instant -- quarterly or annualized numbers (such as the ones I gave) are perfectly fine, and in fact, are more useful for just the reasons you described.
As for the mix of power purchased off the statewide grid -- ERCOT tracks that, so it's certainly not unknowable by any means.
Re: (Score:3)
In Texas, when I buy wind power from my retail electric provider, they are required to turn around and use my dollars to buy physical wind power generation. They don't have to send it to my house. Hell, they don't even have to keep it. They can resell it on the open market to try and make a profit. What I've done by purchasing it is created demand for power generated by wind. This forces electric utility companies to invest money in wind so they can effectively generate and deliver it.
This is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we live near Niagara Falls, it's even better. The Fall don't shut down spontaneously, and turbine redundancy handles regular maintenance.
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Funny)
How am I to know where ComEd got the electrons they sent down my wires?
Those electrons were always in your wires. The power company just made them move around for you.
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Funny)
This just made my day. Up yours, Edison!
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Funny)
Curse you, Tesla!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This being Illinois, I assume there are coal-fired generating plants as well. How am I to know where ComEd got the electrons they sent down my wires?
I am from Illinois also, and also have ComEd as a provider. At least once a year they send out an "environmental disclosure statement" that tells you where your electricity comes from. Typically it's predominantly nuclear, but this year it looks like coal won out. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
After some research, it looks like VTES gets their electrons from coal, as well as another power company in the area (APCO). APCO is owned by
Re: (Score:2)
You can do a lookup rather easily for your region.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, most of the nearby power stations are coal. But I happen to know that the power company buys a substantial amount of their power from the neighboring state's nuclear plant. It's great PR.
Re: (Score:3)
How am I to know where ComEd got the electrons they sent down my wires?
pedant mode on
To be honest, the electrons are already in the metal wires so you are not paying for electrons. You are paying someone to move them around a bit. :)
pedant mode off
Re: (Score:3)
Being on the North end of the DC Intertie in the US and having a relative who worked in Bonneville Power Administration, I have seen the meters on the BPA lines. Most of my power is from the Columbia Basin Hydroelectric system. They are adding a huge amount of wind farms in the area. The local scandal was with the warm windy spring we had last year. The warm windy spring increased the spring snow melt so the spring runoff was high. The investors in the wind farms looked for returns on the investment on
The nice thing is... (Score:2)
0 kWh net grid consumption over the last 12 months (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in Northern Virginia, and I love my solar photovoltaic system (installed awesomely by Solar Odyssey [solarodysseyinc.com]). And if the car companies ever make a decent plug-in hybrid car, it'll only take eight more panels to keep that fully charged - and the cost of eight solar panels would pay back in saved gas in less than two years.
Anyone who says "alternative energy isn't ready" is still living in the 20th century.
-brian
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who says "alternative energy isn't ready" is still living in the 20th century.
or lives further north...
Re:0 kWh net grid consumption over the last 12 mon (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I hear the entire panel has to be clear of snow to work. One row of cells covered at the bottom can kill the whole panel's output.
Re: (Score:2)
First it will be 8 Panels plus the batteries to store the energy while your car is not at home.
Second where are all those panels going to go for the people who live in high rise buildings.
Third, where is the power to deal with your office and all the business that you visit or use? You seem to have an internet connection so how is that powered? I doubt it is by "alternate energy"; part maybe but not all. Do you watch TV? How is the signal produged and transmitted to your home? Is water pumped to your house
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there is an "alternate energy" solution in the instance of a single family dwelling does not mean that it is viable everywhere.
Of course it does.
The panels he's adding to his roof for the car? They'll be putting energy back into the grid during the day. Money in his pocket.
High rise building? What the hell else should a building manager be using that gigantic, flat roof for? (Other than leasing space to a cell-phone antenna, of course) You don't have direct control over this, so I suggest looking for it as a feature the next time you move, if it's that important to you.
Why is it that people think that alternative energy sources can
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does.
The panels he's adding to his roof for the car?
Consider these factors. The battery in the Chevy Volt is 16kWhr capacity. PVs give ten watts per square foot. Sun is available 8 hours a day.
16000/10/8 = 200 square feet of PVs to power the car.
Do you really want to drive around with a 10x20 foot panel on your car?
If you used the car dimensions 14ftx5ft you would get 70 square feet which is 35% of the required area.
Also net zero power use does not mean net zero carbon emission. Those coal plants that need to be kept at operating temp for backup because the
Re:0 kWh net grid consumption over the last 12 mon (Score:5, Insightful)
First it will be 8 Panels plus the batteries to store the energy while your car is not at home.
No. More likely he'll pump the energy into the grid during the day, and draw from it when he charges the car.
The grid is an *excellent* virtual storage system - since it doesn't even need to convert electrical to chemical if someone else wants the power now.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an excellent system for the early adopters anyway. Scaled up it wouldn't work for more than a fraction of the population. Don't forget a grid tie system needs to pump in an entire days worth of energy into the grid in 4 to 8 hours. If a quarter of the users were doing that it would be very difficult to accommodate. Utility companies are going to have to reject further grid tie systems once a small percentage of the population signs on.
But maybe advances in battery systems developed for electric cars wi
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that it won't scale up to more than a fraction of the population used this way, that fraction is pretty large. Our daytime peak usage in the US is approximately double our nighttime usage-- until so many people are pumping daytime solar into the grid that our average daytime load drops below our average nighttime load, we can keep right on doing this without even thinking about storage. It's gonna be a while.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a small hydro plant near me that supposedly pumps the water back uphill overnight, when we have a cheap electricity rate, storing it for when peak demand requires it.
I could imagine a hypothetical future where everyone has ultra-efficient solar panels, and the "cheap rate" is actually the day rate, when everyone's surplus is used to charge storage mechanisms (be they chemical or potential) for the peak-rate night usage.
Not saying its likely, but its possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check the article before calling it a solution. Here is a quote from the article.
A square meter of the film can generate roughly enough electricity to charge an iPhone under peak sunlight, but still allows for high visibility.
So a floor to ceiling panel 1 meter wide might just light one desk lamp. The film may help but it is not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
They make no mention in the article about future efficiency increases. The issue with transparent panelsis that much of the light must pass through them and is lost to energy production. They can not use a reflective backing which increases the efficiency of conventional PVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the film had a similar efficiency to an opaque cell it still would not be enough energy. A 200W computer it would take 20 square feet of window to power that one item. When you take lighting, HVAC, elevators, etc into consideration you can see how much larger the energy use really is. There is not enough window area to power a building. The hurdles are physics related in that only so much energy falls on the windows and only so much of that energy can be collected. These limits can not be overcome b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Northern Virginia...
Anyone who says "alternative energy isn't ready" is still living in the 20th century
Or in Seattle...
Re: (Score:2)
How much did the system cost?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's why parent said 'net' grid consumption.
Occasionally ... (Score:2)
many (Score:5, Funny)
Nuclear, natural gas, "renewables" (geothermal, biomass, wind, small hydro), large hydro, "unauditable" in that order. My utility is fairly green - they even blow up random neighborhoods [wikipedia.org] to reduce overall demand.
Almost everyone in Manitoba knows... (Score:3)
Power company (Score:2)
According to the annual report, power production for 2010 was:
58% coal
19% hydro
17% natural gas
2.5% wind
2.5% imported
1% other (waste heat, landfill gas, etc.)
Missing option (Score:2)
I have a conscience! (Score:2)
Uhmm... solar? Duh! (Score:2)
Every time a similar question arises, someone brings up Feynmann, so let's get it out of the way [csirosolarblog.com].
Green power (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't actually buy the renewable energy, would you have any way of finding out?
Interactive map to help you decide (Score:2)
The Power Company, of course... (Score:2)
Some of it from my roof .... (Score:3)
Solar for the win! (Score:5, Informative)
I installed 48 solar panels on my house which generates around 12,000 kW per year. The installation costs were $65,000 in 2003, or $31,500 after all the direct and indirect rebates. Based on my annual savings, I calculated (in 2003) that I would recoup the cost by the end of 2013, but as electricity costs have risen since that I time I think I'm pretty close to having saved all the installation costs already.
I do use the local utility company for power during non-daylight hours, but that's just a matter of convenience. I could have installed batteries at the cost of $5,000 - but why bother when the utility company can act as my battery? They pay me for excess electricity that is generated during the day, and I pay them for electricity used during the night. My annual bill in December 2011 was $(-133) - that's a $133 check from the utility company.
As an added advantage, we leave the house thermostat at the same temperature settings all year - a low of 72 degrees and a high of 76 degrees, so we are always comfortable at home.
Some people say that solar isn't ready for prime time, and never will be. That's just crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you dismiss too easily the utility company's role in buffering your electricity use. I find it hard to believe that only $5000 worth of batteries would allow you to have normal electric use through multiple days of bad weather when you average over 30 kWh use per day. Seems to me you'd need something like 100 kWh of storage. Since lead acid batteries cost $200 per kWh or so that would be about $20K of batteries. And it would need to be replaced every 5 years or so.
Grid tie solar with net metering is
Re:Solar for the win! (Score:4, Informative)
The Great State of California paid $29,000 and tax rebates paid the rest. But remember, this was 2003. A neighbor installed a very similar installation last year at a total cost of $26,000. The rebates these days are quite minor - I'm not certain if there are any at all.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the problem, it's a belief , not a fact. Acting on belief is the second greatest cause of problems in the world.
'Sustainable' resources... (Score:2)
Electric Connoisseur (Score:5, Funny)
The simple pulse of nuclear, natural gas; then, suddenly high above it ... wind. ...
A single frequency hanging there unwavering, until
solar takes over, sweetening it into phases of such delight, these were oscilloscope traces I'd never seen before.
Filled with such longing, such unfulfilled longing, it seemed to me I was hearing the voice of God.
Re: (Score:3)
The simple pulse of nuclear, natural gas; then, suddenly high above it ... wind.
A single frequency hanging there unwavering, until ...
solar takes over, sweetening it into phases of such delight, these were oscilloscope traces I'd never seen before.
Filled with such longing, such unfulfilled longing, it seemed to me I was hearing the voice of God.
That's odd. All I'm getting is a 60Hz hum.
Power company.. (Score:2)
Well I voted power company, because at least around here (unless you can somehow pull off going completely off grid) you're getting your power from a mixture of the choices. So there's not a great way to pick just one.
Coal (Score:2)
According to the ladwp website (Score:2)
Natural Gas - 26%
Large Hydroelectric - 7%
Renewables* - 14%
Nuclear - 9%
Coal - 44%
*Renewable energy sources include biomass and waste, small hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. So, I guess I'd need an "all of the above" option. This is the first slashpoll where I've actually learned something interesting as a direct result!
The Power Company - Multi (Score:2)
My electricity comes from a variety of sources. Our hydro system takes it from multiple sources and mixes it all together into one big grid. Hydroelectric and nuclear mainly, with some coal and natural gas, and a tiny bit of wind.
Hydro (Score:2)
New Zealand.
So Hydro.
We burn Coal during peak usage, though.
Mostly coal (Score:2)
Being near the Appalachians, there's a lot of coal mines in the region, which means there's a lot of coal power plants. There are a few nearby hydro plants, and one relatively-nearby nuclear plant, but they probably don't contribute much to my power supply.
Off the Grid (Score:2)
No one who has voted on this site can truthfully say that they are "off the grid". How do you think you message got to the /. site? What do you think is powering the machines that are storing and serving these comments? It is grid power.
For someone to be completely "off the grid" one would need to do the following;
1. Not use any communication services; phone (cell or landline), TV (cable or satellite), internet, etc.
2. Not use a gas vehicle. (the service station you use is on the grid and so is the refinery
Solar ... but grid-tied (Score:3)
So I get power off the grid when demand exceeds what the solar panels provide, but I push power onto the grid when I'm generating more than I use.
It sounds great, except for a few things:
1. the game is rigged so I can't actually make money by generating power, I can only zero my bill
2. I have an automatic shutdown, so if the grid is down, my power is off (safety, of course. We don't want to cook any linemen trying to fix the circuits). I could manually throw a disconnect and hook up my generator and get the benefit of both solar and generator, but the solar won't power the house in the absence of another power source.
3. I don't really have enough roof space to put up the number of panels that would meet my power needs, particularly in Winter. I can only fit a 2kW system, when I really need a 3kW system.
Find out where it comes from (Score:3)
The EPA has a great page [epa.gov] that tells you where your energy comes from based upon you zip code and electric company. Mine comes from 40.8% gas, 27.9% nuclear, and 15.1% coal. But I wasn't aware that I also used 4.5% hydro, 4.2% coal, and 5.9% non-hydro renewable.
I work in NYC, which interestingly is 0.0% coal and mostly gas/nuclear.
I chose the last option. (Score:4, Interesting)
Having actually worked at power plants in the local area I know the answer.
Our big "backbone" power plants run coal. I spent extensive time upgrading these plants from token ring to Ethernet about seven years ago.
Our "booster" plants - or "peak" plants are mostly natural gas however there are some other options.
I know for a fact our rolling brownouts of recent years (Houston area) were not technical requirements, the modern electric trading scenario is difficult to explain, but electricity is bought ahead of time by the traders and when use exceeds projected demand the plants simply don't generate the power. Houston has the ability to produce approximately 50% power than we need at peak time, at least that was the case seven years ago. Modern computers that require way less power than models seven years ago, the fact compact fluorescents are taking over and everyone's moving from CRTs to LCDs actually means the average individual consumes less power than an average individual of seven years ago. I'm guessing that to mean the requirements of today are about the same as they were then for various reasons.
I also know if you spend your money on Green Mountain Energy or the other clean power companies you're still getting your power from coal and natural gas for the most part. This doesn't mean you should stop, the modern trading setup practically guarantees that eventually if enough people keep dumping their money into these companies eventually green power will come our direction.
Currently clean power cannot support metropolis's like Houston. We really don't have the tech, but we getting closer. This doesn't mean we should give up on it. The main thing green energy does at the current time is reduce the amount of time "peak" plants have to run. The continuous addition of green energy will eventually start eating into the production of the big coal plants, but we're not there yet. I personally think the best thing to do is urbanize power generation with solar panel covered parking areas, great for the cars, great for power, building top wind turbines - anchored in the middle of your urban farm, and switching household items to DC. 12v LED's lights for the house, batteries for the home. Switching to DC to DC power supplies for computers (for the time being) or even switching to 12v Atom type industrial boards for less powerful needs.
We're going back to an argument that was "settled" more than 100 years ago. AC vs. DC. I say AC still wins for distance and commercial use, but we really need to start going DC within a home on as much as we can, too much power is wasted on AC to DC conversion, or in the case of a UPS AC to DC to AC to DC and maybe even some short distance DC to AC again for cold cathodes and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked up my power company on wikipedia and reported whatever source provides most of their energy.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, all of the power companies publish reports of the breakdown of their energy sources. Most have varied sources. My power company gives options for "Basic" service, which is the standard portfolio (they are divested of their generation assets; they buy it), and two levels of "Green" which is either 50% wind, or 100% wind-generated power.
According to their 2011 report, in 2010 the got 31.9% from gas, 29.1% from nuclear, 11.8% from Oil, 10.7% from coal, etc. I have basic service, so I know
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solar _and_ wind (Score:5, Funny)
Fantasy Land.
Re: (Score:3)
I know (not very well) someone that does that in the UK. They've got loads of insulation, solar heating, PV panels, and the most efficient appliances you can get. They've made changes to their lifestyle to use less energy -- e.g. using a slow cooker to cook meals, using a Netbook (no desktop PC), very little TV, etc.
There are several energy companies in the UK that only sell power from renewable producers (wind, etc). There's a decent free market for electricity supply -- I can decide to change company an
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me the only way you can have multiple electricity suppliers (or gas for that matter), without having a mess of conflicting distribution systems, is for the distribution system to be owned by a separate entity. Is that the case there?
Re: (Score:3)
We have a choice of suppliers here. The distribution system is owned by one of them (which is a government owned corporation run on a commercial basis). Legislation requires them to work with the others.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, sounds like another example of why privatization is generally a bad idea; if you have to have a monopoly on something, it makes more sense to have it be a government-owned (and autonomously-run) corporation rather than a privately-owned (or publicly-traded) one, because there's more accountability to the taxpayer and no profit motive.
Re:Solar _and_ wind (Score:4, Informative)
So you don't get your power from a common grid that switches to whatever source it feels like? Looks like the only environmental effect it is to make you feel good about yourself. Elsewhere (Norway), practically all our electric energy production is hydroelectric and clean, but we export some of it to elsewhere (Germany), which then replaces some of their dirtier coal. Of course, that also means we import their dirty electricity when needed, which is more often now as we export a lot and the dams have limited capacity and depend on seasonal precipitation, snow melting, etc., but overall it should be better for the environment than hogging all the hydroelectric for our own use.
HOWEVER, due to the seasonal variation in hydroelectric and corporations making as much money on import as on export, the energy companies sell off their cheap, clean electricity in the autumn so that they need to import expensive, dirty electricity during winter, when people really need it, driving the price up.
Just an example of the free market being friendly to the environment while being hostile to the consumer.
Re:Solar _and_ wind (Score:4, Informative)
I'll tell you where else he doesn't live: the southwest. Here in Arizona, solar power is indeed a pretty decent option, thanks to 300+ days of sunlight a year, and a LOT of it too (way too much in the summer!). However, wind power is non-existent. There's no significant wind here in the desert (we get a big dust storm now and then, but nothing constant; most of the time it's pretty still). You usually need to go to the coasts to have a decent, constant supply of wind for driving wind turbines.
The lesson here is that using renewable power sources is extremely dependent on geography, probably far more so than traditional sources (though those frequently need to be located next to a river).
Re:Solar _and_ wind (Score:5, Interesting)
What really pisses me off is that SRP won't pay jack for consumer-provided power back to the grid. I have enough flat roof space on my house and garage to provide all the power I'd need for 200A service to my house plus some back to the grid, which would be really, really handy on those days in the summer when everyone's AC is running constantly trying to keep the 110F temperatures at bay. But, since they're only willing to pay me the middle-of-the-night, can't-hardly-give-power-away rates regardless of what time of day I'd be providing power to them, I can't justify the investment in the solar, as a grid-tie with intentional islanding system like I'd need would probably cost $40,000 or more.
The reason I think this is short-sighted of them is that when they need the extra power now, they have to crank up expensive-to-operate demand-load power generators that use natural gas or diesel for fuel. Their base-load plants are fine, we have the largest nuke plant in the western hemisphere located a few miles west of town, but they can't exactly ramp up and ramp down power production there nearly so easily as letting consumers' solar panels naturally provide the extra oomph during the times of day when the power is needed most, ie, when the sun is directly beating down on every structure in town.
I don't expect to receive credit for the entire cost they'd normally charge consumers for peak demand power use. I don't even expect to receive credit for the peak demand cost minus the delivery infrastructure costs (ie, maintenance of power lines), but it would be nice to receive more like 50% instead of the more like 10% they currently offer.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Wisconsin where solar power is not great, but because costs have come down it is now close to being cost effective and I was looking at buying a system that would effectively cut my costs in half for 15-16k after tax credits. But after reviewing my house east/west facing rooftop and several nearby trees my solar potential was unfortunately deemed to be poor.
http://madisungroup.wordpress.com/howitworks/ [wordpress.com]
SRP does allow you to switch to Time of Day pricing so you could offset your air conditioning cos
Re:Solar _and_ wind (Score:5, Informative)
Actually one thing worth noting is that effective solar installations are easier to do in temperate areas than in the tropics. North or south of the tropics you can position your panels facing south or north (respectively, towards the sun) and that'll work well. In the tropics you have the problem that some of the year the sun is in the southern sky, and sometimes it in the north...
It's actually not worth noting since the incident angle changes by the same amount regardless of your distance from the equator. Someone using a panel who is at 45 degrees north latitude points them south at an angle of around 45 degrees but half the year that angle is too shallow, the other half it is too steep (exactly as if you were at 0 deg N.)
AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some by a more circuitous route than others.
Re:AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people get their electricity from angular kinetic energy, but you're right in most cases.
Hopefully that last clause will keep the tide of the moderators from turning against me.
Re:AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, just nuclear. Though it may travel 96,000,000 miles or so to get here.
Re: (Score:3)
That's nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
While the AC brings up good points, rooftop PV panels are beginning to become as popular as solar water heaters, and there are several spots where wind-powered generators take advantage of the Venturi effect from the trade winds squeezing around and over the islands. There are plans to place arrays of PV panels on especially well insolalated portions of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, but there are a number of issues to deal with first. Some of these the AC invoked, and some relate to generating power in one spot