3 ms·

If you look at the book "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" you will find it chock full of data. Problem is, it's for the UK, not the US. But FWIW, I think

by lawpoop 11y ago

If you look at the book "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" you will find it chock full of data. Problem is, it's for the UK, not the US. But FWIW, I think the UK is more north than the continental US. http://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/0954452933 http://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/...

Retric 11y ago
That has a lot of issues. So don't trust their numbers. EX: They use 10% for solar cell efficiency when some current systems are over 22%. http://www.sciencealert.com/panasonic-has-produced-the-world-s-most-efficient-rooftop-solar-panel-with-22-5-module-efficiency http://www.sciencealert.com/panasonic-has-produced-the-world... And lab results are even higher.
- ksrm 11y ago
  The book is over 7 years old now, published just before PV prices crashed. Here are the citations for the 10% figure: http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_47.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_47.shtml Overall I thought the book was excellent. Some of the numbers are slightly off but a lot of the calulcations are intentionally back-of-the-envelope. What were the other issues you had with it?
  - Retric 11y ago
    Mixing units when not appropriate. Heating is a great example, solar hot water heaters or sunroofs can cheaply collect a lot of heat. Heat pumps can also extract energy from air pushing up there numbers.* Further, insulation can make a large difference without directly showing up on heating or cooling numbers. All of which make the "Heating, cooling 37 kWh/d" a meaningless number. Transportation is another area, we don't care about the energy content of gas when IC engines have such terrible efficiency numbers. "not on my street", "not in my back yard!" page 109 are also complexly arbitrary issues. Consider, farmers love wind power as a very small footprint brings significant revenue. Sheep can happy eat grass under a wind turbine. (*): A solar room can collect heat which is then redistributed though a home or even concentrated by a heat pump at extreme efficiency to heat a house without being uncomfortably warm or ugly.

by lawpoop 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

That has a lot of issues. So don't trust their numbers. EX: They use 10% for solar cell efficiency when some current systems are over 22%. http://www.sciencealert.com/panasonic-has-produced-the-world-s-most-efficient-rooftop-solar-panel-with-22-5-module-efficiency http://www.sciencealert.com/panasonic-has-produced-the-world... And lab results are even higher.

ksrm 11y ago
The book is over 7 years old now, published just before PV prices crashed. Here are the citations for the 10% figure: http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_47.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_47.shtml Overall I thought the book was excellent. Some of the numbers are slightly off but a lot of the calulcations are intentionally back-of-the-envelope. What were the other issues you had with it?
- Retric 11y ago
  Mixing units when not appropriate. Heating is a great example, solar hot water heaters or sunroofs can cheaply collect a lot of heat. Heat pumps can also extract energy from air pushing up there numbers.* Further, insulation can make a large difference without directly showing up on heating or cooling numbers. All of which make the "Heating, cooling 37 kWh/d" a meaningless number. Transportation is another area, we don't care about the energy content of gas when IC engines have such terrible efficiency numbers. "not on my street", "not in my back yard!" page 109 are also complexly arbitrary issues. Consider, farmers love wind power as a very small footprint brings significant revenue. Sheep can happy eat grass under a wind turbine. (*): A solar room can collect heat which is then redistributed though a home or even concentrated by a heat pump at extreme efficiency to heat a house without being uncomfortably warm or ugly.