Tiny Houses

From a cost of energy solar is better than the generator. That generator burns 1.5g/hr for 6kW output ant at $2.40/g LPG that's  $0.6/kWhr - Ouch!

Now if we add the equipment and maintenance cost for the generator that gets up to $0.8/kWhr.
NREL estimates the solar cost for that array to be about $0.25/kWhr, and that does not include the battery system.
It won't take long before that trench starts looking real good.

PeeTex wrote

From a cost of energy solar is better than the generator. That generator burns 1.5g/hr for 6kW output ant at $2.40/g LPG that's  $0.6/kWhr - Ouch!

Now if we add the equipment and maintenance cost for the generator that gets up to $0.8/kWhr.
NREL estimates the solar cost for that array to be about $0.25/kWhr, and that does not include the battery system.
It won't take long before that trench starts looking real good.

I think if you look at any FF generator they are pretty expensive.  But I could be wrong, it's just something I seem to recall.

Grid is almost always cheaper, I never disputed that.  You could do the calcs and see when the solar begins to break even, but I think in a lot of cases for full off-the-grid it's a long ways down the road, like 15+ years.   And of course that assumes you don't put anymore money into it for repairs or upgrades.

If I were in Jeff's position, I would either go simple (more primitive), or get an estimate of what it would cost to get the grid hooked up.

Jeff, if you are lookin' to get rid of that land, I have nothing to trade, but I'm always looking to buy.  Where is it located (roughly)?  Lack of electric has no consequence to me.  I'd start off with nothing.

PeeTex wrote

Jeff,
I sure you don't believe my "overly pessimistic" estimates but here is a tool from the National Rural Electric association (NREL): PVSolar Tool

Basically it says with a 1.7KW array in a normal residential installation using the weather data from Saranac Lake and North River as a location you might see about 150KW/H per month. A 100W bulb uses approx. 75KW/H per month if you ran it 24-7. I am not making this shit up.

OK, I plugged in a 1.7KW system into the calculator and set the location for the Adk Reg Airport outside of Saranac Lake, coldspot of the nation.

NREL says in the lowest months of production (Nov-Jan) I will still get 100Kwh per month.  Let's say I'm running Mike's fridge, at 168 watt-hours per day.  That's 5.2Kwh for the month, or 5% of the system's power output in January.  Now let's add some LED or CFL lights, say ten 75-watt equivalents (actual consumption 15 watts) running for 4 hours per day. That's 10 bulbs x 15 watts x 4 hours x 31 days = 18.6Kwh for the month.

Conclusion:  Using NREL''s calculator, I could run an efficient refrigerator and tons of energy efficient lights and still only tap 25% of the solar system's output in it's least efficient months.  I've still got 75% left over to run a space heater blower motor and keep the batteries charged. I don't consider those estimates "overly pessimistic" at all, but I do consider your example of a 100W incandescent bulb running 24/7 for a month to be a poor comparison (even though the math is correct on the 75Kwh per month).

At $0.25/kWhr versus $0.1/kWhr the payback is infinity.

PeeTex wrote

That generator burns 1.5g/hr for 6kW output ant at $2.40/g LPG that's  $0.6/kWhr - Ouch!

Not a problem.  Your calculator says it's unlikely the generator would need to run at all.

MikeK wrote

Jeff, if you are lookin' to get rid of that land, I have nothing to trade, but I'm always looking to buy.  Where is it located (roughly)?  Lack of electric has no consequence to me.  I'd start off with nothing.

North River, off 13th Lake Road, maybe a mile or so from the North River Fire Dept if you know where that is.  Technically it's just over the line into the Town of Indian Lake.  The Indian Lake part of the road is Cleveland Road, the North River end is Cemetary Road. It's a great location in terms of being near OK Slip Falls, 13th Lake, Garnet Hill Lodge and obviously Gore.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think those that are opposing the solar system are almost always going to point to cost.  It's not going to be cheap, but at some point, if the system stays running, you will break even from what the grid is.  And you should absolutely factor in the cost of the trench, wire, and any other labor to hook up the grid.  Some people just go off cost of the energy not including install.

I can wave my hands here all I want, but unless you crunch the numbers and can predict the future a bit, you aren't going to have a good answer.

I did this for a Diesel vehicle versus a comparable gas vehicle (a Jetta Wagon) considering everything I could factor: fuel cost, depreciation, maintenance, ect. and it was really hard to justify the Diesel.  It was tricky to estimate because fuel costs change a lot, but I had some historical averaging going on.  This is why I say you have to be able to predict the future a bit.  Some of this is unknown.  Your solar system could crap out in a couple years, and if you get something without a warranty it could be a money pit.  The cost of electric could skyrocket in the next decade if we actually get our heads out of asses and start assessing the situation that FF aren't a good option, and neither is nuclear (unless of course you want to sign up to store the waste product under your house).  We are either going to burn out, or get smart.

I'm not saying running off to a cabin in the woods and burying your head in the sand is the right answer, but maybe it is for some people (I kinda think I would like that).  Maybe supporting these technologies is the answer.  It will in turn make them cheaper in the future.  I don't know that home power generation makes the most sense from an efficiency or resource standpoint, but it might, especially in certain applications.  Anyway, not all decisions can be justified in dollars and cents.  It's one way to look at things, but if we keep looking at things that way we're in for a world of hurt down the road.

PeeTex wrote

At $0.25/kWhr versus $0.1/kWhr the payback is infinity.

What have you factored into the 10 cents figure?  No it's not infinity.  The rates are the same, and I see how you might think that, but the solar figure isn't a fixed rate.  The power grid is.  You keep paying.  Eventually solar you have (or could) pay off your intial investement.

You need to look at it in terms of total money for a certain amount of energy over a fixed amount of time.  And also you cannot guarantee the grid cost will remain constant.

Also if you tend to use less efficient devices using the grid, that is also another factor to consider.  You could use these efficient devices with regular grid hookup, but how many people invest in them to conserve energy?  Almost nil.

Adk Jeff wrote

MikeK wrote

Jeff, if you are lookin' to get rid of that land, I have nothing to trade, but I'm always looking to buy.  Where is it located (roughly)?  Lack of electric has no consequence to me.  I'd start off with nothing.

North River, off 13th Lake Road, maybe a mile or so from the North River Fire Dept if you know where that is.  Technically it's just over the line into the Town of Indian Lake.  The Indian Lake part of the road is Cleveland Road, the North River end is Cemetary Road. It's a great location in terms of being near OK Slip Falls, 13th Lake, Garnet Hill Lodge and obviously Gore.

Nice area, but out of my range.  Seen as how I'm coming from Western NY I have a specific radius that makes sense to me.  If I lived near Albany that would be def in my range.

Not to nitpick, but I just looked up my electric bill.  Cost is $0.16/kW-hr for everything.  That's the juice, tax and delivery charges.  Also you should factor in your hookup cost into that over a certain time period... and consider you are going to pay that until you ditch the place.  Also it's unlikely to go down in the future.

I live in a city.  Highly unlikely it's less out in the stix.

MikeK wrote

Not to nitpick, but I just looked up my electric bill.  Cost is $0.16/kW-hr for everything.  That's the juice, tax and delivery charges.  Also you should factor in your hookup cost into that over a certain time period... and consider you are going to pay that until you ditch the place.  Also it's unlikely to go down in the future.

I live in a city.  Highly unlikely it's less out in the stix.

It is less, particularly up around Lake Placid. I would guess NR is maybe $0.12 for both supply and distribution.
The NREL cost of solar energy is based on the purchased price of the system amortized over 25 years. You would never break even.

Do some research.

PeeTex wrote

 
The NREL cost of solar energy is based on the purchased price of the system amortized over 25 years. You would never break even.

 

Just the cost of the system?? To be fair they should factor in maintenance and repair costs too.

Adk Jeff wrote

PeeTex wrote

Jeff,
I sure you don't believe my "overly pessimistic" estimates but here is a tool from the National Rural Electric association (NREL): PVSolar Tool

Basically it says with a 1.7KW array in a normal residential installation using the weather data from Saranac Lake and North River as a location you might see about 150KW/H per month. A 100W bulb uses approx. 75KW/H per month if you ran it 24-7. I am not making this shit up.

OK, I plugged in a 1.7KW system into the calculator and set the location for the Adk Reg Airport outside of Saranac Lake, coldspot of the nation.

NREL says in the lowest months of production (Nov-Jan) I will still get 100Kwh per month.  Let's say I'm running Mike's fridge, at 168 watt-hours per day.  That's 5.2Kwh for the month, or 5% of the system's power output in January.  Now let's add some LED or CFL lights, say ten 75-watt equivalents (actual consumption 15 watts) running for 4 hours per day. That's 10 bulbs x 15 watts x 4 hours x 31 days = 18.6Kwh for the month.

Conclusion:  Using NREL''s calculator, I could run an efficient refrigerator and tons of energy efficient lights and still only tap 25% of the solar system's output in it's least efficient months.  I've still got 75% left over to run a space heater blower motor and keep the batteries charged. I don't consider those estimates "overly pessimistic" at all, but I do consider your example of a 100W incandescent bulb running 24/7 for a month to be a poor comparison (even though the math is correct on the 75Kwh per month).

The problem with that analysis is that it is based on averages, not the actually hourly production and loads.  That solar array will do zero when it is raining or covered with snow, and not much when it is cloudy.  Last summer, we had a couple of weeks when it rained 5 days in a row, and last winter my roof was covered with snow for months. Solar makes good amounts of energy, but it is useless for reliability.  That's why you need batteries, and batteries create their own problems, especially in the winter.  Net metering solves all those problems, and that's why the solar industry only exists where net metering is allowed.
Your realistic choices are to go primitive or hook up to the grid.  I went without power for a week once, and for me the hardest part was I had no water, so I think if you don't have a system that supports a well pump and reliable heat to prevent freezing the pipes, you're no better off than no electric at all. All your other needs can be covered by woodstoves and LEDs. YMMV.

MM
   

PeeTex wrote

It is less, particularly up around Lake Placid. I would guess NR is maybe $0.12 for both supply and distribution.
The NREL cost of solar energy is based on the purchased price of the system amortized over 25 years. You would never break even.

Do some research.

Ha - I think I have.  You are making a lot of vast assumptions here.  $0.25/kWhr over 25 years for how much usage?

So if I have cabin that uses on average 100 kW-hr per month and a house that uses 800 kW-hr per month, that is the same if I have to pay $2-3k to get the grid installed and if I have vastly different power requirements that will need a larger or smaller system?

You will certainly break even.  You said infinity.  That simply isn't true.  In reality is 30 years?  100 years?  It's a finite value.  You may have a solar system that operates well into that range with no issues.  It may shit the bed in two weeks.  You don't know.  You are pulling numbers off of one scenario and making vast assumption.

And really when it gets down to a couple hundred dollars over 25 years, if that was the case.  Would it matter?  I can't even comment on how much it might be because I don't have the info on how much energy usage we are talking about and what our initial and monthly costs are.

Jeff,
I never said you couldn't do it, rather that you have to work at it.
If you want to live in what is essentially an RV on a foundation than go for it, it can be done.
All I am trying to point out is that you are not going to have a lot of conveniences you have at home, it will be more of a rustic camp.

MM - I think we need to stop confusing them with the facts.

First thing we need to know, for Jeff's particular situation, is how much it will cost to get electric to his camp.

Then he'll need to have a long, hard chat with himself (or his wife) and figure out what is a need and what is a want.

He then can do an inventory of how much energy it might take and how much it will cost him to get there.  I'm not disputing that it might not be more expensive, it most likely will, but I don't have enough info to say that for certain.  And how long?  If your solar system has a 35 year warranty (which some do that I've seen), then is it worth it in those 35 years?

And some people will do it even if it is more expensive, just because they want to do it that way.  People buy Diesel cars in the US, but I can't calculate it out being cheaper in most cases.

When I was talking before, I was talking more general.  I was thinking of cases where it might be cheap to get a grid connection, or it already existed and those places where it was very unlikely it would ever be, or it was so far back in it might be cost prohibitive.  For example, if you had a place on some parts of Cranberry lake there are no roads to get there and it's unlikely you'll ever get an electric hookup back there.  I'm not even sure about getting a well drilled or excavation in some of those areas.  You would think someone would have a barge they could get out there and drill or dig for you, but that might be EXTREMELY costly.

I actually started off my rationale by wanting to not having to have a monthly electric bill that is an unknown, non-fixed cost, especially if I was going to retire early.  I don't know how long I will live.  I don't know what electric will cost in the future, etc...  To me that makes sense to have grid if you can get it as a backup for emergency, and try to live off solar.  You could say put your money in the bank and continue to be a slave to the power companies, but for some a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  If you could predict 35 years into the future (I'm 35 now), then I might think otherwise.  And it's much easier to take a big risk like that when you are young and can maybe afford to fail, than when you are old and don't have any options.

PeeTex wrote

Jeff,
I never said you couldn't do it, rather that you have to work at it.
If you want to live in what is essentially an RV on a foundation than go for it, it can be done.
All I am trying to point out is that you are not going to have a lot of conveniences you have at home, it will be more of a rustic camp.

And I thought I made it clear up front that this was a concept for a 600 sq ft weekend cabin, so yes obviously there would not be all the conveniences one has at home.  Living in an RV on a foundation?  Poor analogy again.

MikeK wrote

I actually started off my rationale by wanting to not having to have a monthly electric bill that is an unknown, non-fixed cost, especially if I was going to retire early.  I don't know how long I will live.  I don't know what electric will cost in the future, etc...  To me that makes sense to have grid if you can get it as a backup for emergency, and try to live off solar.  

That's upside down.  Electric prices are mostly predictable, and have actually been falling the last few years. The political reality is that they can't raise rates too much without doing something to make sure people can pay their bills. In NY, they can't shut your service down in the winter even if you don't pay your bill, and if you live long enough to spend through all your savings, they'll discount your rates, and the state will help you pay the rest. If you need power for medical equipment, the power company will take care of that if there is an extended blackout.  

OTOH, if you go off the grid you are on your own with a solar system that includes panels, inverters, controllers, and batteries.  A failure of any one of those components could happen at any time and could cost you thousands.  And it could happen more than once over 35 years.  

Which plan has more risk?

If you use solar with a grid connection, you are using the grid for all your reliability, not just emergencies.  Without the grid, solar is not worth much at all.  For now, you can get a bill reduction without any investment, or buy your own and net meter down to zero.  Net metering is going away, but it will be replaced with something that will work better.  

Off the grid is the hippy version of survivalism.  If people can't cooperate enough to run an electric system, there is no hope for civilization.

MM

P, I have no idea of your background, but I've seen a consistent response here, and I see it often in certain mindsets.  Rarely have your responses been a solution or suggestion on how one might tackle a particular problem, but rather why it won't work.

I'm not claiming what I know to be correct, because honestly I don't know.  I'm merely thinking of ways that might be used to do something a certain way.

What I get from you is "I know better than all of you and I can prove it."  It's a common trap to fall into and you'll always be behind someone who is willing to try to think of scenarios where things might make sense.  What did the general public think of the automobile when it was first introduced?  It was too expensive and impractical given the roads of those days.  Look at it now.  It's as much a curse as anything we are rapidly consuming these days, but still, the trend went forward because of innovation, not because the horse was cheaper.