My Dad has something like this in MO.
It is a fan system that can suck all the air in the house up and out within a few minutes. Useful a bit farther north after the sun goes down.
Not useful in Texas in the summer tho'. You will probably get a different system that just vents the attic air only.
You are not the only person to ask about this.
http://www.mothering.com/community/t...ttic-fans-work
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6175251AAd8OIz
http://www.diychatroom.com/f97/solar...es-work-51727/
http://www.ecodirect.com/solar-power...work-s/223.htm
Best bit:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...icient/1275656
THe Yahoo answers had some good practical tips from a guy who say he is a general contractor.
Overall the consensus is yes, venting the roof will save you some modest amount of energy.
I would point out that if you have really good insulation, the radiative heat from the attic won't affect the A/C bill as much, so your savings will be less.
Even so, the fan set up seems pretty darned inexpensive (based on the PM article, not sure what installation runs), so it seems like it wouldn't have to save much to pay for itself. Since it is PV powered, you aren't going to have to spend any electricity on it.
Given the low cost, it seems like something with little risk, and a lot of upside. It would be an interesting selling point when you go to sell the house when moving.
Good info. Thanks!
I think it's going to be worth it. After the 30% tax credit I'd be looking at less than $1k for installation (2 fans). Even if I only get a 10% reduction in cooling costs across just the hottest 6 months I'm thinking I should still be close to break even within 4 or 5 years.
Japanese Farmers Producing Crops and Solar Energy Simultaneously
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Japanese_Far...lar_Energy.php
I researched putting a fan in my attic, but so many sites said the airflow analysis was quite complicated, and sometimes fans are totally ineffective.
I opted for peak ventv for passive ventilation, and also reflective foil attached to the under side of my roof rafters. air comes in the soffits, up with the chimney effect/convection between the foil and the under side of the roof, then out the peak vent.
Any idea what the unsubsidized price per kill-watt-hour is?
nope. article says it's coming down.
well, from what I gleaned from various sources and their optimistic output, it would take over 21 years to recoup the $2 billion at $0.10 /kwh just going to the project cost, at a zero percentage loan rate. I see so many probable problems that reduce the electrical output. Keep in mind, this cost does not include wages, parts, etc.
I hope this is viable, but I'll bet all this goes sideways.
WC: "I see so many probable problems"
of course you do
Do you see "so many probable problems" with fracking or super-deep-sea oil drilling?
Ahnold - "Give tha people their powaaaaaaa"
What's your point? Yes, I see possible problems. However, when it comes from lib s like you, who chronically act like "the boy who cried wolf," I don't pay much attention. Besides, that is a business venture that may very well be shut down from the possible side effects. This project was funded with $1.4 billion in federal loan guarantees. It must not have any confident capital venturists if they are staying out of the game without a guaranteed profit.WC: "I see so many probable problems"
of course you do
Do you see "so many probable problems" with fracking or super-deep-sea oil drilling?
Do you support our government guaranteeing rich capitalists a profit and no loss?
"business venture that may very well be shut down from the possible side effects"
what side effects? making coal and nuclear less compe ve?
for govt-guaranteed loans, when the corrupt financial casino delivers more profits to capitalists than infrastructure/industrial investments, then yes, some greasing the money skids by govt make a lot of sense, and nearly always pays off.
LOL...
That went right over your head.
Try reading my point again.
Like Solindra?
CPS is paying their solar farm operator 14 cents a KWH.
The Terminator can't even pronounce "Mojave".
Nothing went over my head, I ed slapped you.
I simply cannot imagine that. It's ridiculous. What do they charge their customers? I forget exactly, but I pay about $0.10/KWH with all the taxes, fees, etc. included where I live.
No, you missed by a several hundred kilometers, at least.
bump
even with the massive dump of chinese solar products onto the market to get grab whatever % , have u guys noticed chinese solar companies are going busts? hence even if you look at the local companies who sourced their solar panels from china are also going busts, theres a few down here that are going busts just not from compe ion, but from the supply chain...dodgy equipment will always be dodgy
BigCarbon companies in AU fighting distributed and centralized solar viciously
The dark forces lined up against renewables in Australia
The Australian renewables industry is under no illusion about the extent of the forces lined up against it following the election of a highly conservative Coalition government in Canberra.
The antipathy to renewables in large sections of the Coalition is deep set, as it is among some of the highly influential and ultra-conservative think tanks such as the Ins ute of Public Affairs, and various industry lobby groups.
But even battle-weary supporters of solar and wind energy – and those firmly in the middle of the road – were taken aback by an extraordinary tirade against renewable energy delivered in Sydney on Wednesday by Burc Wilson, a senior economist at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
ACCI is one of the most visible and influential lobby groups in Canberra, and its opposition to climate policy, carbon pricing, and renewables incentives, is well known. Still, no-one was quite ready for the “venomous rant” – as one observor described it – against the renewable energy target that Wilson delivered to the Eastern Australian Energy Outlook Conference.
Wilson’s approach was not atypical of the sort of rhetoric we have come used to hearing from conservative energy ministers – be they state of federal – and the in bent utilities, who are threatened by the rise of renewables, and their cheerleaders in the conservative think tanks.
The trick for these people is to ignore the benefits of renewables – increased investment, more jobs, lowering emissions, delivering a faster transition to low carbon economy, solar delivering cheaper alternative to homes and businesses – and instead paint a doomsday scenario.
There was no mention of the massive influence of network costs, or the $1 billion in annual subsidies paid to support the delivery of fossil fuel generation to customers in WA and Queensland. Instead, the focus is on inflated “abatement costs” using out of date technology prices, warnings about rising energy costs, collapsing industries and economies, and all the things that only a “green ideologue” would think were good.
Then you throw in hyperbole – the renewable energy target was “crazy”, “an ugly baby”, and “bad policy” that could only be justified by an “ideological predilection towards renewable energy.”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/the-...ustralia-20629
B- ...
I'll bet they don't want to be forced to distribute electricity that is more expensive...
http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-larges...ium=socialflowTake 300,000 computer-controlled mirrors, each 7 feet high and 10 feet wide. Control them with computers to focus the Sun's light to the top of 459-foot towers, where water is turned into steam to power turbines. Bingo: you have the world's biggest solar power plant, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.
Long-mired by regulatory issues and legal tangles, the enormous solar plant–jointly owned by NRG Energy, BrightSource Energy and Google–opened for business today.
From the official news release:
The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is now operational and delivering solar electricity to California customers. At full capacity, the facility's trio of 450-foot high towers produces a gross total of 392 megawatts (MW) of solar power, enough electricity to provide 140,000 California homes with clean energy and avoid 400,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, equal to removing 72,000 vehicles off the road.
I wonder what the preventative maintenance schedule is to keep those mirrors clean. How many man-hours/year...
500-square-mile wind farm could save California $750 million annually
California law says that a third of the state’s energy must come from renewable sources by 2020. A proposed 500-square-mile, $8 billion wind farm developed by Anschutz Corp. in Wyoming could provide up to 3,000 megawatts of this power, or about three nuclear reactors’ worth.
A preliminary National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report from late January found that wind power from the Cowboy state could save ratepayers in the Golden state a lot of gold — up to $750 million annually.
Greg Brinkman, an energy analysis engineer at NREL told the Casper Star-Tribune that the findings of their study are consistent with previous studies. Their research found that Wyoming wind projects have a cost-benefit ratio of 2.8 to 1 when compared to California solar, wind and geothermal. Wyoming wind is very strong and reliable, and the cost-effectiveness benefits from large economies of scale.
“When utilities planners see numbers of two or higher, this is relatively unusual, and indicates very positive economics, very positive incentives to make this investment,” he said.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/13/huge-wind-farm-save-ca-750b-energy-bills/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
