4 ms·

A single 400 watt solar panel and batteries could power this 24/7, no problem.

turtlebits 5y ago
Doubtful. Most of the US does not get 6 hours of full/peak sun (2400w/6 = 400w)
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Only if you live in the Sahara. Panels are rated for power they produce at 1,000W/m2 irradiance, in UK average is 100W, that panel will produce 40W on average.
- turtlebits 5y ago
  That seems absurdly low. My 250w panels get within 90% of rated output and I'm in Seattle.
  - coder543 5y ago
    I think they're averaging throughout the year, using the number of "Mean Annual Sunshine Hours" * "Percent Possible Sunshine", which would account for average cloud cover and such. I'm sure that for a few hours during the summer, the solar irradiance in London is probably 90% of what it is at the equator. That doesn't help most of the year.
bick_nyers 5y ago
Gotta remember the double whammy here. Starlink is mostly rolled out at higher latitudes where solar power is less effective. Still, solar is cheaper than utility power most of the time. Might need 1.5 of those panels. Maybe I'm crazy, but I wouldn't consider off-grid unless I had like a 5KWh array at a minimum. Probably with wood burning stove as primary heating source if I really couldn't expand that solar for electric heating due to cost. With heat inverter pump tech. taking over fridges, water heaters, AC, etc. and making them so much more efficient, it can give a lot of headroom on energy requirements.
Syonyk 5y ago
No. It can't. My office has 5kW of panel hung, 10kWh of battery, and my Starlink terminal is on the house system (grid tied) because an extra 2.4kWh/day isn't workable with my system in the winter, short of a LOT of generator time - I'm severely power limited during inversions, and the Starlink dish more than doubles my office's "idle power draw" (it's the property network hub, one of our internet connections, inverter idle, sleeping computers, etc). Yesterday, the 15.9kWh system on the house produced 78kWh for a "sun factor" of about 4.9, so a 400W panel would produce about 2 kWh. Whoops. That's not 2.4. In the dead of winter, the same system can produce 2.5 kWh - yes, 2.5 kWh on a 15.9kW nameplate system. A 400W panel won't even power on the charge controller in those conditions. To reliably power a 100W load, 24/7, in most areas, requires probably 1500-2000W of panel and 20+kWh of battery - or someone willing to light a generator, which is the far cheaper option. But "a 400W panel and batteries" (implied as a trivial thing to set up) definitely won't. It won't even run it 24/7 in peak sun most of the year. ... and that's before it tries to melt the snow off. From the blog post: > During the heavy snowfall, Dishy quickly spiked up to 125W, peaking at 175W towards the end of the snowstorm. Solar panels don't produce much covered in snow, either.
- skellington 5y ago
  You are probably technically correct, but most people don't need 24hr internet access, so that one 400 watt panel would provide high speed internet for let's say 12 hours a day and that's plenty for this odd scenario of living in a place with no power but still needing high speed internet.
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    The claim was 24/7 powering with "a 400W panel and some batteries" - which is simply false. I deal with the realities of off-grid power in my office on a daily basis, and a vast majority of what's written about solar and batteries by people who don't have experience with them is simply wrong. I try to correct it where I can. With a 400W panel and a few kWh of batteries, you could reasonably accomplish 14-16 hours of access during peak sun in the summer, 8-12 hours in spring and fall, and 0-3 hours in winter, except for 5-6 hours on sunny winter days. Although I've heard that the newer Dishys use somewhat less power (50-70W), which does improve things.

Doubtful. Most of the US does not get 6 hours of full/peak sun (2400w/6 = 400w)

Only if you live in the Sahara. Panels are rated for power they produce at 1,000W/m2 irradiance, in UK average is 100W, that panel will produce 40W on average.

turtlebits 5y ago
That seems absurdly low. My 250w panels get within 90% of rated output and I'm in Seattle.
- coder543 5y ago
  I think they're averaging throughout the year, using the number of "Mean Annual Sunshine Hours" * "Percent Possible Sunshine", which would account for average cloud cover and such. I'm sure that for a few hours during the summer, the solar irradiance in London is probably 90% of what it is at the equator. That doesn't help most of the year.

bick_nyers 5y ago

Gotta remember the double whammy here. Starlink is mostly rolled out at higher latitudes where solar power is less effective. Still, solar is cheaper than utility power most of the time. Might need 1.5 of those panels. Maybe I'm crazy, but I wouldn't consider off-grid unless I had like a 5KWh array at a minimum. Probably with wood burning stove as primary heating source if I really couldn't expand that solar for electric heating due to cost. With heat inverter pump tech. taking over fridges, water heaters, AC, etc. and making them so much more efficient, it can give a lot of headroom on energy requirements.

Syonyk 5y ago

No. It can't. My office has 5kW of panel hung, 10kWh of battery, and my Starlink terminal is on the house system (grid tied) because an extra 2.4kWh/day isn't workable with my system in the winter, short of a LOT of generator time - I'm severely power limited during inversions, and the Starlink dish more than doubles my office's "idle power draw" (it's the property network hub, one of our internet connections, inverter idle, sleeping computers, etc). Yesterday, the 15.9kWh system on the house produced 78kWh for a "sun factor" of about 4.9, so a 400W panel would produce about 2 kWh. Whoops. That's not 2.4. In the dead of winter, the same system can produce 2.5 kWh - yes, 2.5 kWh on a 15.9kW nameplate system. A 400W panel won't even power on the charge controller in those conditions. To reliably power a 100W load, 24/7, in most areas, requires probably 1500-2000W of panel and 20+kWh of battery - or someone willing to light a generator, which is the far cheaper option. But "a 400W panel and batteries" (implied as a trivial thing to set up) definitely won't. It won't even run it 24/7 in peak sun most of the year. ... and that's before it tries to melt the snow off. From the blog post: > During the heavy snowfall, Dishy quickly spiked up to 125W, peaking at 175W towards the end of the snowstorm. Solar panels don't produce much covered in snow, either.

skellington 5y ago
You are probably technically correct, but most people don't need 24hr internet access, so that one 400 watt panel would provide high speed internet for let's say 12 hours a day and that's plenty for this odd scenario of living in a place with no power but still needing high speed internet.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  The claim was 24/7 powering with "a 400W panel and some batteries" - which is simply false. I deal with the realities of off-grid power in my office on a daily basis, and a vast majority of what's written about solar and batteries by people who don't have experience with them is simply wrong. I try to correct it where I can. With a 400W panel and a few kWh of batteries, you could reasonably accomplish 14-16 hours of access during peak sun in the summer, 8-12 hours in spring and fall, and 0-3 hours in winter, except for 5-6 hours on sunny winter days. Although I've heard that the newer Dishys use somewhat less power (50-70W), which does improve things.