Solar Possible for a Farmstand?

[Sunking]

We are close to the grid (50') so I guess that's the way to go, I just figured I'd rather have one less bill..

So what is your question? It would be very foolish biz decision to even thank about Solar. $2000 to the POCO is a Steal of a Deal for unlimited cheap power.

Here is what you need to know about Solar and everyone else needs to know.

Anything you take off grid will cost you 5 to 10 times more than buying it from the power company for the rest of your life. It also makes you a extremely heavy polluter with a huge carbon foot print. So not only are you screwing yourself twice, but everyone else in the world as you consume unnecessary fuel resources

You have been brainwashed if you think otherwise. It takes a huge amount of energy to make those expensive batteries you replace every few years. So much energy it is way more than the batteries can give back which means negative EROI. The reason batteries are so expensive is because it is a multiple of the fuel cost used to make them It takes roughly 100 wh of energy into a battery making them, to get 20/30 wh out of them from cradle to grave. That means you increased your carbon foot print 5 times, and voluntarily gave yourself a 500% rate increase in electricity.

Home owners are dumb enough to go off grid, but not biz people, they have a biz to run. Take that money you save and buy a great big LIGHTED NEON sign customers can see from miles away. Play music, run fans, and anything you want.

[cgofish]

Here is what you need to know about Solar and everyone else needs to know.

Anything you take off grid will cost you 5 to 10 times more than buying it from the power company for the rest of your life. It also makes you a extremely heavy polluter with a huge carbon foot print. So not only are you screwing yourself twice, but everyone else in the world as you consume unnecessary fuel resources

Sunking, let me preface this by saying I'm asking out of honest curiosity and not saying your wrong in your statement, but how do you know this is the case? Is there documented data on this or is this general terms as I'm sure factors of going off grid and the costs involved are going to vary with each installation.

[Sunking]

Sunking, let me preface this by saying I'm asking out of honest curiosity and not saying your wrong in your statement, but how do you know this is the case? Is there documented data on this or is this general terms as I'm sure factors of going off grid and the costs involved are going to vary with each installation.

How about 35 years as a professional engineer who has worked with every major battery manufacture there is, or just simple math of a cost analysis. Or perhaps contributing author of IEEE Battery standards committee. I know a thing or two about batteries.

What is confusing you is you are on a basic DIY site with home owners taking part who really do not know much about solar. We got one guy here named Dan who knows nothing about the technology answering questions. There are a few pros here and they are easy to pick out. The pros know I speak facts, the others do not count.

So when you have some guy with a setup at a campsite is not your mentor. Stop and think about how a homeowner uses the fridge or freezer. The dang door is shut 99% of the time. You cannot compare a home owners use to commercial operation. Whatever fridge you use will never cycle like any other commercial fridge. The doors are opened and closed continuously. You will use 10 times more power than a home owner uses. That is why Commercial and industrial users pay less for electricity because they use a LOT of power so you get a lower price. That is how biz works. If I were to walk up to your stand and say how much for everything, I get a huge discount right?

I am not trying to beat you up, but hit you upside with a 2 x 4 to get your attention and make you think for a moment. Take the POCO deal. It is a No Brainer biz decision.

[cgofish]

How about 35 years as a professional enggineer who has worked with every major battery manufacture there is , or just simple math of a cost analsys.

Interesting, Is that something you see getting better or worse in the future?

[Mike90250]

> cost analysis

No change, unless everyone goes and buys batteries driving the price up

[SunEagle]

Interesting, Is that something you see getting better or worse in the future?

Hopefully someone builds a better mousetrap (cheaper/higher quality battery) and then the numbers will get better someday. But the price from the POCO would have to go up considerably to make the power from batteries less costly then from the grid.

[Sunking]

Interesting, Is that something you see getting better or worse in the future?

Not possible with lead acid, nickel based batteries. It is like the myth of a hydrogen fuel economy. The price is driven by the source fuel cost, thus the end product will always be a multiple of the base fuel cost. Take hydrogen as an example. It is made from natural gas and the process is around 5% from well to wheel. That means it takes 20 units of fuel to produce 1 unit of work, thus hydrogen fuel cost 20 times more than natural gas per unit of work.

Put another way you have two gas stations side by side. One sells gasoline for $3/gal, and the other sells for $15/gal. Which station do you use? It is that simple.

[littleharbor]

What's the reason We cant cost effectively separate the hydrogen from oxygen in good old H2O?

[SunEagle]

What's the reason We cant cost effectively separate the hydrogen from oxygen in good old H2O?

It takes more energy (and cost) to split water to get the hydrogen then you get from burning the hydrogen.

Of course I have always asked what about all that solar that is just wasted and is not used. Since it isn't being used to run anything or being stored why can't we use it to split water and create hydrogen? The answer I always get is that it costs too much to build a solar array and not use it for the grid.

Then what about the excess wind we get. Instead of shutting down the wind turbines because the grid can't take any more why can't we redirect that power to splitting water and create hydrogen? Again because it costs a lot and the market for hydrogen is not there yet. It is enough to drive someone crazy.

[littleharbor]

Sun Eagle, thanks for your explanation. It's kind of what I figured.

Apparently there isn't much of a market, at least after cost to mfg. it is concerned, for the by product, which would be oxygen.

[SunEagle]

Sun Eagle, thanks for your explanation. It's kind of what I figured.

Apparently there isn't much of a market, at least after cost to mfg. it is concerned, for the by product, which would be oxygen.

Right now making hydrogen is really a by product of the natural gas industry which seems to be the cheapest way to "manufacturer" it for now.

The sad part is if we eliminate the fossil fuel industry like some people want we also eliminate the best source of hydrogen which is how you power fuel cells which is what the some of the same people want. Kind of ironic.

[Sunking]

What's the reason We cant cost effectively separate the hydrogen from oxygen in good old H2O?

Simple laws of physics. Hydrogen like a battery is NOT A FUEL SOURCE, it is a CARRIER, and very inefficient carries. Same reason you cannot jump onto the moon or on top of your house. Laws of physics will not allow you to do that and there is no way around the Laws of Physics. No exceptions.

The Law is EROI of energy return on investment is always negative with energy carriers. Think of it this way. For every $20 you give me for gasoline, I give you $5 back in hydrogen energy.

[J.P.M.]

Simple laws of physics. Hydrogen like a battery is NOT A FUEL SOURCE, it is a CARRIER, and very inefficient carries. Same reason you cannot jump onto the moon or on top of your house. Laws of physics will not allow you to do that and there is no way around the Laws of Physics. No exceptions.

The Law is EROI of energy return on investment is always negative with energy carriers. Think of it this way. For every $20 you give me for gasoline, I give you $5 back in hydrogen energy.

Mean old Mr. Entropy strikes again. Can't get more out than goes in, and probably a lot less.

[Sunking]

Mean old Mr. Entropy strikes again. Can't get more out than goes in, and probably a lot less.

Yep a lot less. The energy needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen is only the first loss and the least of all that follow. Compressing, liquidfying, and cryogenic refrigeration, tansport, leaks, and thermal losses are huge. That is even before you buy it. Then you have to add the losses you have once in your fuel cell. I do not think folks understand you cannot contain hydrogen for long periods of time, it will leak out and boil off.

FWIW is you had a EOG the USN uses on subs electrolysis is roughly 95-98% efficient. No before you get excited no commercial operation would use them because the economics really suk big time using Platinum electrodes. You think battery replacement cost are high. But even if you could make electrolysis inexpensive and 100% efficient is still a big loser. In the end you still end up burning 10 to 20 units of energy to get 1 unit out. You do not have to be a scientist to understand it is stupid and a horrible waste of resources and money, and a very heavy big carbon footprint for those that believe in hydrogen.

There is only one way to make hydrogen work, and work well. Problem is idiots like Dan would never let it happen. You can make massive amounts of hydrogen from conventional power generation. The most efficient way to make hydrogen is to turn water into liquid steam just like you do conventional power. You just need a good clean heat source with dirt cheap fuel that we have at a minimum of 10,000 years of supply. You are standing on it. Figure it out yet? Nuclear power baby.

Using the excess heat in a reactor is just plain smart as you can keep the furnace burning at the same sustained rate with little to no fluctuations. Real simple all excess capacity from the reactor is used to make hydrogen. So when load demand fades at night the heat is used for hydrogen production. Do that and you have a endless supply of cheap clean safe power for both electricity and light transportation.

To bad we have Dan in the world stopping us.

[J.P.M.]

Yep a lot less. The energy needed to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen is only the first loss and the least of all that follow. Compressing, liquidfying, and cryogenic refrigeration, tansport, leaks, and thermal losses are huge. That is even before you buy it. Then you have to add the losses you have once in your fuel cell. I do not think folks understand you cannot contain hydrogen for long periods of time, it will leak out and boil off.

FWIW is you had a EOG the USN uses on subs electrolysis is roughly 95-98% efficient. No before you get excited no commercial operation would use them because the economics really suk big time using Platinum electrodes. You think battery replacement cost are high. But even if you could make electrolysis inexpensive and 100% efficient is still a big loser. In the end you still end up burning 10 to 20 units of energy to get 1 unit out. You do not have to be a scientist to understand it is stupid and a horrible waste of resources and money, and a very heavy big carbon footprint for those that believe in hydrogen.

There is only one way to make hydrogen work, and work well. Problem is idiots like Dan would never let it happen. You can make massive amounts of hydrogen from conventional power generation. The most efficient way to make hydrogen is to turn water into liquid steam just like you do conventional power. You just need a good clean heat source with dirt cheap fuel that we have at a minimum of 10,000 years of supply. You are standing on it. Figure it out yet? Nuclear power baby.

Using the excess heat in a reactor is just plain smart as you can keep the furnace burning at the same sustained rate with little to no fluctuations. Real simple all excess capacity from the reactor is used to make hydrogen. So when load demand fades at night the heat is used for hydrogen production. Do that and you have a endless supply of cheap clean safe power for both electricity and light transportation.

To bad we have Dan in the world stopping us.

FWIW, having designed some stuff, hydrogen systems are a beast to design, starting with the metallurgy. The nasty little H2 molecules are so small they just want to sneak out of ordinary containment vessels including piping every chance they get, so special materials and fabrication techniques are required. Another design consideration is hydrogen embrittlement, further limiting material selection and fabrication and generally making things more interesting as well as probably negating the use of a lot of existing equipment and pipelines. All that is before any cryogenic design considerations. Lots of interesting design situations that the "you could just do this " crowd is mostly clueless about.

Most of the design considerations can be and have been dealt with, but having done design and engineering of a few fair size H2 systems, I'm of the opinion the cost for widespread acceptance or a hydrogen economy entails a lot more than most folks know or suspect.

Kind of like mini-nukes in the basement.