Check out this guy's PV

24kW of thin film, at a cost of $160k before $80k's worth of rebates and tax incentives. Wow....PV system of my dreams!



http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-thin-film-solar-panels-20110826,0,2821581.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

24k? Is this guy off grid, and storing that?

I retract my statement, he is very likely grid-tied, but uses on average as much as he generates:

"Right now, our electricity use is balanced," Harberger said, adding that his family will use as much electricity as it generates, on one condition. "If I can control my kids," he said. "I tell them to watch the smallest TV possible."

Click to expand...

It looks like the roof, and the solar film, curves down on the north side of the building the same way it does on the south side. His peak power is going to be a lot less than 24kW. Remember, solar panels (and films) are rated on the maximum power they can generate when the sun is striking perpendicular to their surface, and of course there never is such a time for the entire film with his setup.

Ray

here in Florida, with hurricanes, that looks really smart...

I saw that article in the paper yesterday and thought it was very cool, but very pricey. I have always been a sucker for curved roofs, and thin film solar panels is the perfect complement. I was kinda disappointed when I read they "...generate about 50% less electricity per square foot and cost about 10% more than traditional photovoltaic panels." It sure makes a beautiful and unobtrusive solution with that architecture, though.

TT

planet4ever said:

It looks like the roof, and the solar film, curves down on the north side of the building the same way it does on the south side.

Click to expand...

Based on the shadows I'd think the roof curved east-west. The article mentions south-facing PV but there might be more to the building than what the picture shows.

But generally I agree - all the surface area will not all be at peak production at the same time, because of the curve. But if it's planned like that, you'll get a lower but more consistent output throughout the day as different areas produce peak. That's a good thing!
=Smidge=

surfingslovak said:

"If I can control my kids," he said. "I tell them to watch the smallest TV possible."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A better option is to get one of those cheap LED DLP projectors. Just a few 100 lumens - but use little electricity.

I live very near Chatsworth and based on the description and pictures I have pretty good idea of the vicinity of this house, just not quite enough detail to actually find it. Too bad because I’d love to drive by and look at it.
I like how the guy blames his kids for using too much energy by watching the big TVs, while he, for some reason, finds the need to run 7 refrigerators :roll:

Smidge204 said:

Based on the shadows I'd think the roof curved east-west.

Click to expand...

A shadow twice as long as the person is high pointing north?? Not anywhere close to LA. Maybe a winter noontime in Anchorage? No, not with that unfrozen pool there. I'm sure that picture was taken in late afternoon, the shadow points east, and we're seeing the south side of the building.

Ray

evnow said:

surfingslovak said:

"If I can control my kids," he said. "I tell them to watch the smallest TV possible."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A better option is to get one of those cheap LED DLP projectors. Just a few 100 lumens - but use little electricity.

Click to expand...

OLED is real low power, too - especially when they're under 20" diagonals

Harberger's installation will power not only his lighting, electronics and air conditioning, but also systems that would traditionally be juiced with natural gas. The thin film will heat all the water for the home and run the forced-air heating system as well as the clothes dryer and oven

Click to expand...

In stead of natural gas? hoy vey - what a waste.

I guess it depends on your perspective. For me, anything that spews carbon into the atmosphere is a terrible waste, as is anything that drives fracking.

Ray

planet4ever said:

I guess it depends on your perspective. For me, anything that spews carbon into the atmosphere is a terrible waste, as is anything that drives fracking.

Ray

Click to expand...

I guess that means all birds - reptiles - and all us carbon spewing mammals are a terrible waste then. That's a mighty harsh standard. It'd sure be nice if we could get some wiggle room there.

hill said:

planet4ever said:

I guess it depends on your perspective. For me, anything that spews carbon into the atmosphere is a terrible waste, as is anything that drives fracking.

Ray

Click to expand...

I guess that means all birds - reptiles - and all us carbon spewing mammals are a terrible waste then. That's a mighty harsh standard. It'd sure be nice if we could get some wiggle room there.

Click to expand...

Birds and reptiles...and us do not spew carbon into the environment...you have to take the inputs into account. We are carbon neutral. If he's using free sun power to heat water, etc... why in the world would it be a waste to use it over natural gas?

davewill said:

Birds and reptiles...and us do not spew carbon into the environment...you have to take the inputs into account. We are carbon neutral. If he's using free sun power to heat water, etc... why in the world would it be a waste to use it over natural gas?

Click to expand...

Ok - I'll bite - taking 'inputs' into account ... all those dinosaurs etc that became our present day natural gas ... weren't they all carbon neutral too - taking 'inputs' into account ? Hopefully no one's missing the point ... there IS no new carbon. All the carbon stuff we extract from the earth - it was all above ground at one time or another. I'm not trying to mess w/ anyone's global warming views ... I'm just mentioning the facts about carbon that somehow get over looked.

.

hill said:

Ok - I'll bite - taking 'inputs' into account ... all those dinosaurs etc that became our present day natural gas ... weren't they all carbon neutral too - taking 'inputs' into account ? Hopefully no one's missing the point ... there IS no new carbon. All the carbon stuff we extract from the earth - it was all above ground at one time or another. I'm not trying to mess w/ anyone's global warming views ... I'm just mentioning the facts about carbon that somehow get over looked.

Click to expand...

If you want to play that game, I'll point out that life scrubbed massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere...otherwise there would be no free oxygen in it at all. Sure all that carbon was at one time an "input," but we can't afford to have it all freed. Fossil carbon needs to stay where it is if we want a world that we can live in.

Maybe it's time for another pointer to a parable I wrote three years ago called progress.

Ray

Animals are just as carbon neutral as a power plant or an ICE vehicle - we input carbon in one form or another and exhaust it to the air in the form of CO2.

Plants, on the other hand, input the CO2 and exhaust oxygen to air and convert the carbon to some other form.

davewill said:

hill said:

planet4ever said:

I guess it depends on your perspective. For me, anything that spews carbon into the atmosphere is a terrible waste, as is anything that drives fracking.

Ray

Click to expand...

I guess that means all birds - reptiles - and all us carbon spewing mammals are a terrible waste then. That's a mighty harsh standard. It'd sure be nice if we could get some wiggle room there.

Click to expand...

Birds and reptiles...and us do not spew carbon into the environment...you have to take the inputs into account. We are carbon neutral.

Click to expand...

The parable seems to ignore an important factor that earthly discussions also ignore - the number of be-alls relative to the amount of resources on their tiny planet. The fewer be-alls, the longer their resources would have lasted, which in combination with making more efficient use of those resources could have brought about a balance that would be sustainable. At some point, no amount of efficiency improvement or renewables substitution will overcome sheer numbers.

planet4ever said:

Maybe it's time for another pointer to a parable I wrote three years ago called progress.

Ray

Click to expand...