4 ms·
Unless I'm mistaken, that's based on the assumption that you're in position to use 100% of the energy produced during the day, exactly when it's produced. I'm s
by Yoric 4y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, that's based on the assumption that you're in position to use 100% of the energy produced during the day, exactly when it's produced. I'm sure that there are scenarios in which that's true (e.g. keep the refrigerator on all day long, use some other energy source for the night) but if your main use for the energy is not correlated with the sun being up (e.g. power your computer when you're back home in the evening), you need to add the actual energy cost of storage, which is typically really bad.
This considerably increases the time to energy payback. Still probably worth it, though.
- ncmncm 4y agoPanels are so cheap now that they pay even if you waste most of what they could have produced. A smallish battery that captures only some of the excess, and delivers it when you need it, suffices. Battery cost is still falling fast as new chemistries come online. Hydrogen synthesis and storage might displace batteries for domestic use, particularly if hydrogen-fueled cars succeed. (Advice: keep all that equipment outside!) If not, zinc/bromine battery tech looks strong.
- Yoric 4y agoAre you tokey of monetary cost or the total amount of energy needed to actually build/deliver/install/maintain/dispose of these technologies? If the former, you are clearly right. If the latter, I'm not so sure (with current tech).
- ncmncm 4y agoMonetary cost, as already noted, reveals an exact upper bound on the amount of energy needed to build and deliver the goods: people doing those get no discount on their power bill. The price also includes labor, administrative and marketing costs, tariffs, taxes, and whatever profit was taken, less any public subsidy or loss-leader discount.