Guest Mini E Blogger: Zero Emissions? Well, Almost...

Wondering about the emissions behind the electricity you're using is a good question... but the same can be asked about gasoline. Both need to be extracted and transported, but coal is generally transported a much shorter distance and it doesn’t go through gasoline’s refining process. Then it’s burned in huge power plants that may be more efficient than car engines because of the scales involved. As a bonus, the fly ash from coal power plants can often be used to replace half the cement in concrete – every ton of fly ash used saves one ton of CO2 emissions (which would have come from cement production).

I don’t know the numbers… no one’s done them yet. But a lot of people seem to take a cradle-to-grave approach to electricity but are more lenient with gasoline (they start counting emissions at the gas station rather than the origin of that petroleum).

I took the bus this morning ( i take it every morning), that's all I have to add to the conversation.

I've often thought that solar shingled roofs should really be more common on new construction, especially high end homes where the extra cost is not as important. It sounds like you made a wise choice. Well done.

old_volvo: Energy hog. This week I took the electric elevated train everyday, last week a rode my bicycle 3 out of 5 days (abt 25 miles round trip). :)

I agree that for some folks EVs will do the job. The multi million dollar question is how many will people buy? The standard refrain that "most people drive less than 40 miles per day" is irrelevant. What is relevant is how many of those folks will be willing to pay more money for a car that comes with some limitations, (range) and requires a change in behavior (plugging in every day)? My guess (aren't we all guessing at this point?) is that once the range reaches 200 miles, which should cover those unforeseen emergencies, and the purchase price is competitive, EVs will do well. I know total cost of ownership is lower, how many people buy a car based on the total cost of ownership? Most people buy based on the monthly payment, or if knowledgeable, the best price they get. As for solar cells, now is a great time to buy if you plan to be in your house for 10+ years.

I grew up in India. My father, a certifiably crazy engineer, told us one fine day that he was going to put solar panels on our roof & was going to use them to heat our water. It was quite an expensive investment 25 years ago as the panels & new plumbing etc were all expensive. Also, it was relatively new technology at the time & I believe we were one of the very first family in the city to do so.

But the system has been working flawlessly & in India, it is the most preferred water heating method as it is very economical when compared to using electricity. My father still snickers when hears the greenies on the TV talking about being 'sustainable'.

The problem with using such system in US is that if the temperature varies a lot, the piping inside the solar panels can crack, unless they have been properly insulated. That's the reason solar panels are expensive in US when compared to India.

brn: I'd be happy to answer any questions I can, but they are long answers so maybe it's not best to do it here. You can email me directly from my blog if you want

carlisimo: great point about the "cradle to the grave" analysis on electricity generation. The amount of energy wasted and pollution created from oil extraction, shipping, refining, trucking & dispensing is staggering. Then factor in how much money our government spends to protect our oil interests in foreign lands and the real price of gas is probably over $15 gallon.

Throwback: I had that same conversation with someone today; "what is the magic number" regarding range of EV's to really bring them mainstream. I could go on for hours on this topic. I really think once cars like the Volt come out and people that own them see that they hardy ever buy gas for it they will realize they may not need the range extender. It's a nice insurance policy for sure and if you only have one car, then you probably need it until EV's go further on a single charge or quick charge stations are readily available. But I think you are pretty much on with 200 miles. Personally I think a little lower, around 150-160 will do it, but it will be different for everyone and EV's need to be around for a while before everyone warms up to them. Right now nobody knows what to expect from them and they are so rare that many people just say " Oh I could never live with one of them" I didn't think I could until I tried it.

Wobbly Ears: Yes using solar to heat water is region-specific here in the US. In the North is is used for heating swimming pools during the summer months but then shut down and drained out before it freezes.

Tom M
MINI-E #250 @ 27,250 miles
http://minie250.blogspot.com/

Solar panels are extremely expensive still. Without large government subsidies they typically don't pay out. Here's an article about how several large installations in Texas will produce maybe 1/3 of their installation cost in energy over their life:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/032010dntexsolarpanels.4085bf3.html

texases: I'm not sure how it works for the companies in Texas that you are referring to, but for a residential installation in New Jersey, the solar production savings plus the SREC's earned pay for the entire system in under 8 years depending on the size of the system. I know about 5 people in my area that have them and are all extremely pleased. As a matter of fact, when you have one you usually ask "why doesn't everyone have one?" You can have it installed with no money out of pocket if you wish as most utilities have programs offer no money down installs and also it is extremely easy to get financing (yes even in these times) if you wish because the system is such an income producer.
My system will pay for itself completely in 5-6 years and it will easily earn me 75,000 to 100,000 in it's lifetime.

Tomm250, I'm sure it will work out fine for you, with the taxpayers' helping through subsidies. My point is that photovoltaics are an expensive way for society to generate electricity right now, that those same $$ could be better spent elsewhere.

Here's another discussion from thre British point of view. Again, without subidies, the costs for PVs far exceeds the value of the electricity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/10/feed-in-tariffs-solarpower

See these are the kind of pretentious people that make me love burning gasoline.
It was a fine post until the end he had to throw this in "but still much better than burning gasoline."
Gasoline has been around forever and probably will be, yes i don't care about scientific research. In the 70's there was an "energy crisis" so 40 years later we still burn it like we have an endless supply. It's just stupid like Obama with his MPG standards, okay more MPG's will cut down on use of fuel but not really everyone will still be in cars driving around they will just have to wait longer to refill. It won't cut down on the amount of cars being driven. It's like throwing lots of money at a company that has already failed it doesn't do anything. O, wait Obama did that too.

Texases:
Yes, the subsidies definitely are the tipping point for many people. They were a big savings for me as well, as it would have taken me another 4 years to break even without them. That would bring my break even point at around 9-10 years depending on energy rates and SREC values. Still, I would be way ahead in the long run if I stay(as I plan on) at my home for a long time. The panels I have are guaranteed to be at least 80% efficient at 25 years, and are supposed to last much longer. Luckily for me New Jersey has historically has some of the highest SREC values in the country and that is currently true. They are trading for $655 in NJ currently and my system will produce enough electricity to earn me about 10 a year, plus I'll save about $225 to $250 per month on electricity. The system will "earn" me roughly $8,000 to $9,000 per year so even if I had to pay for it in full without any rebates it would still be financially sound.

Tom, I give you all due props on the home solar. I'm jealous even.

In fact, if I lived in Jersey I'd be a little pissed that my tax dollars were going to fund the rebates for your solar system, instead of saving those bucks to afford my own.

I live in the Southeast, and if there's one thing we've got by the cubic lightyear; it's sunshine. The way my house is situated, I'd be near as makes no difference to getting paid to generate power. Sigh.

Great story and great pic.

Most folks do not realize that the totalitiy of renewable energies (solar, wind, geo thermal ect.) receive only 18% of the subsidies that the oil industry recieves.

In Tom's case it is he the individual that gets the renerable subsidies instead of a large corporations for the oil subsidies. Imagine that, an American citizen getting a subsidy as oppossed to a multi national corporation.

The improtant part here is energy independence, distributed rather than centralized, and the huge savings over the decades economicly and from emmisions.

If you lived in the LA area before the catalytic converter you know what I'm talking about.

today over 50% of our man made emmisions in ciites is from our transportation and with Tom's solution that goes to nil.

Cheers
peder

"Gasoline has been around forever and probably will be, yes i don't care about scientific research"

See these are the kind of people that make me wonder.... Uggg

Whatever your position on subsidies, tax credits and rebates, it's pretty clear that generating electric this way is a win win for everyone. Hopefully prices will continue to decline to the point that all new homes are automatically built with them. As noted above, distributed renewable energy sources are better than relying on centralized power plants.

@Tomm250
In 25 years do you think you'll replace the solar panels for a small nuclear reactor? LOL!

But really I'm glad that the numbers support you in doing this as every time my family as looked at it I'll have older grandkids by the time the first panels pay off themselves.

Sorry, you EV boosters are missing the point. If society is going to spend, say, 100 billion$, it should get the most for its money. As the British article noted, EVs might not be it. It mentions 4X the electricity for the same investment. I imagine the same money could also be spent on mandating increased efficiency (say by doubling the gasoline tax) and result in much larger reductions in fuel use. Many options, many better options.

Hybris:

I guess I might have to if I want to keep my "early adopter" status going. ; )