Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

grist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#31

Post by criley »

sophacles wrote: post #18

I work in this space. I think it is worth noting that, yes this is true for some players, particularly at middle management and executive levels. However it is equally work noting that some of the resistance is just conservative engineering. Would you just grab the latest 0.1 release of the hot new database and throw it up on your production systems because everyone keeps talking about the promise of it? This is a re…

Excuse my ignorance (I am a layperson and simply interested in this subject), but are you suggesting that the utility themselves would rollout distributed solar to their customers, and thus the utilities engineers are skeptical of the technology and how it would be rolled out?

It seems to me that the whole point is that consumers will begin the rollout themselves, generating and storing power on their own and the only visible effect to the utility would be a dramatic decrease in power use by that customer.

While having a grid where you could sell your unused energy is a great idea, I didn't see that as the focus of this article. I thought this article was simply about the distributed generation and storage.

In the context of distributed generation and storage on an individual level -- why do utility engineers matter? They don't get a say in the rollout, they don't manage it, and they certainly don't get to prevent it. All they can do is maintain their infrastructure in the face of a change they cannot stop.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#32

Post by asynchronous13 »

_delirium wrote: post #11

Something that would be interesting: a map estimating the areas in which a typical suburban home roof covered with PV panels would produce enough energy to power a typical suburban home's worth of electrical usage, assuming some level of battery technology. I'm not actually sure what it'd look like. Seems like there might be a tradeoff between hotter areas, which have both higher PV output and higher peak electricity…

I'm an electrical engineer and I've done these calculations for my own home.

The roof area of a 1200 sq ft ranch home is much larger than the surface area of solar panels needed to power the home. (in other words, your map would show pretty much all of north America). But covering all of a roof with solar panels is very expensive.

The biggest problem is that the "typical suburban home" is ridiculously inefficient.

In terms of bang for your buck, investing in efficiency improvements is a much better choice for the average home owner. Don't even consider solar panels until you've reduced energy needs first.

After efficiency upgrades, modern solar panels make a lot of sense financially speaking.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#33

Post by [deleted] »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #17

Ironically widespread availability of solar power could lead to increased pollution. Purely hypothetically, if somehow it became popular for people to generate some, but not all, of the power they need from solar panels then perhaps people would pay less money to the power companies. Power production becomes less profitable and there's less demand for expanding supply. Meaning that the cheapest power production that…

[deleted]

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#34

Post by mikepurvis »

marshray wrote: post #25
ck2 wrote: post #8

I doubt most people can afford enough solar and battery storage to power all the air conditioning needed for the longer, hotter summers we are having. We'll just use less coal which is a great thing, until the coal industry starts getting subsidies to stay alive in a few decades (which is certainly going to happen considering their political power). Grid-tie is a much better answer for people and utilities though. So…

Cooling in the summer requires much less energy compared to heating in the winter. It's also a lot more of an optional comfort than a critical survival need.

Besides more thoughtful residence design and geothermal techniques, there are even obvious retrofits like automatically opening and shutting windows/blinds at dusk/dawn. In many places, that alone should be enough.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#35

Post by revelation »

sophacles wrote: post #18

I work in this space. I think it is worth noting that, yes this is true for some players, particularly at middle management and executive levels. However it is equally work noting that some of the resistance is just conservative engineering. Would you just grab the latest 0.1 release of the hot new database and throw it up on your production systems because everyone keeps talking about the promise of it? This is a re…

I don't understand. This might be the current problem for utilities, where laws demand that solar power can be inserted into the grid (often as a priority or for a guaranteed price) by what would normally be just consumer households.

This article is talking about using your solar power system to actually fulfill your complete power needs, without any grid.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#36

Post by ph0rque »

asynchronous13 wrote: post #32
_delirium wrote: post #11

Something that would be interesting: a map estimating the areas in which a typical suburban home roof covered with PV panels would produce enough energy to power a typical suburban home's worth of electrical usage, assuming some level of battery technology. I'm not actually sure what it'd look like. Seems like there might be a tradeoff between hotter areas, which have both higher PV output and higher peak electricity…

I'm an electrical engineer and I've done these calculations for my own home. The roof area of a 1200 sq ft ranch home is much larger than the surface area of solar panels needed to power the home. (in other words, your map would show pretty much all of north America). But covering all of a roof with solar panels is very expensive. The biggest problem is that the "typical suburban home" is ridiculously inefficient. In…

I've had a solar installer make a report... it would take a little more than half of my roof (the house is a ~1000 sq ft one-story building).

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#37

Post by revelation »

Two of Musks companies have partnered to build just that very system described in this article:

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-storage.aspx

Of course its marketed as backup power right now, but once battery costs come down this will be very viable.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#38

Post by akiselev »

criley wrote: post #31
sophacles wrote: post #18

I work in this space. I think it is worth noting that, yes this is true for some players, particularly at middle management and executive levels. However it is equally work noting that some of the resistance is just conservative engineering. Would you just grab the latest 0.1 release of the hot new database and throw it up on your production systems because everyone keeps talking about the promise of it? This is a re…

Excuse my ignorance (I am a layperson and simply interested in this subject), but are you suggesting that the utility themselves would rollout distributed solar to their customers, and thus the utilities engineers are skeptical of the technology and how it would be rolled out? It seems to me that the whole point is that consumers will begin the rollout themselves, generating and storing power on their own and the onl…

I think the article is talking about customers who buy their own solar installations. The thing is, no system is available (afaik) that is 24/7 solar power (batteries add a massive cost to user solar installations) so the only way for you to have power at all times is to sell the surplus generated solar back to the utility (which is where the engineering problems come in) during peak solar hours and using the gird off peak.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#39

Post by reitzensteinm »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #12
luxpir wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a small part of this information revolution, may I suggest a (free as PDF) book on the energy problem and the varying efficacy of its potential solutions, available from here: http://www.withouthotair.com/ . It's an eye-opening read for the most part and uses real-world figures for its estimates to show just what might and might not work in replacing fossil fuels around the world. I wouldn't have been as intereste…

Cannot recommend this book enough - brilliant as it just looks at the figures - how much of Britain (Author is a Cambridge mathematics prof.) would have to be covered in solar panels or wind farms to replace coal etc. Entertaining, memorable and instructive. Go read.

I too absolutely recommend Without Hot Air; if you're interested enough to read this far into the comments, you'll enjoy the book.

It's a refreshing physicist's take in a field normally consumed with politics and hand waving.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#40

Post by gmu3 »

ollysb wrote: post #3

The culture of protecting existing businesses is becoming infuriating to read about. Businesses are there because they're the most efficient way to solve the needs of a group of people. If circumstances change and a better solution presents itself then both new and _existing_ businesses have an opportunity to take advantage of it. There's absolutely nothing to stop the existing utility companies being the companies t…

I acknowledge this is slightly off topic, but the culture of attacking industries seems somewhat problematic for similar reasons. Passing unfriendly restrictions and higher and higher taxes on oil companies, doesn't really help solve the problem. Sure they're oil companies now, but they're not really oil companies. They're energy companies, are the biggest investors in better solutions, and have the most to lose if they don't invest in the future so why hinder them so much?
Post reply on HN