A Zero-Energy Off-Grid House and Electric Car Scenario
In an increasingly crowded, complex, resource scarce, and globally
interdependent world, long supply
lines for energy, water, and food become perilous and subject to natural and
man-made disruptions. A
return to more local and self-reliant method of resource use may be a better
approach than large
centralized scenarios.
In an earlier report, see:
staff.washington.edu/larryg/Energy/housePV.doc
I compared a centralized energy scenario with a partly local scenario:
Family I versus Family II, where
both live in the same location, have the same size house and quality of
appliances, and drive one or more
automobiles the same distances per year. The differences were that Family I
possesses a conventional
house+car combination, whereas the house for Family II was built according
to the European Passive House
standard, the cars were electric, and, while still connected to the
electrical grid, the house and cars
got their power from a large (approx. 8 KW) PV array making it a
net-zero-energy house+car combination for
the next 30+ years.
Despite the large increase in the initial cost of the house for Family II,
there were no additional
upfront costs for Family II, and the annual overall savings were typically
several thousand dollars/year.
So the economics appears to work for a house still connected to the grid.
I would like to extend this concept to a small community, say 20 families,
that can operate almost totally
off the grid in terms of energy and water (perhaps later this could extend
to food). But initially I will
do so by by extending it to a single household where the house is not
connected to the grid: no pipes,
wires, or cables connect it to the outside world (other than TV/Internet).
If the economics works for that
case, then the extension to a small community should be even more economical
due to the ability to share
resources and dampen large swings in energy and materials usage.
See: http://staff.washington.edu/larryg/Energy/off-grid.doc
for an analysis of that approach.
--
Larry Gales
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110116/b4f6a457/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
In an increasingly crowded, complex, resource scarce, and globally
interdependent world, long supply
lines for energy, water, and food become perilous and subject to natural and
man-made disruptions. A
return to more local and self-reliant method of resource use may be a better
approach than large
centralized scenarios.
In an earlier report, see:
staff.washington.edu/larryg/Energy/housePV.doc
I compared a centralized energy scenario with a partly local scenario:
Family I versus Family II, where
both live in the same location, have the same size house and quality of
appliances, and drive one or more
automobiles the same distances per year. The differences were that Family I
possesses a conventional
house+car combination, whereas the house for Family II was built according
to the European Passive House
standard, the cars were electric, and, while still connected to the
electrical grid, the house and cars
got their power from a large (approx. 8 KW) PV array making it a
net-zero-energy house+car combination for
the next 30+ years.
Despite the large increase in the initial cost of the house for Family II,
there were no additional
upfront costs for Family II, and the annual overall savings were typically
several thousand dollars/year.
So the economics appears to work for a house still connected to the grid.
I would like to extend this concept to a small community, say 20 families,
that can operate almost totally
off the grid in terms of energy and water (perhaps later this could extend
to food). But initially I will
do so by by extending it to a single household where the house is not
connected to the grid: no pipes,
wires, or cables connect it to the outside world (other than TV/Internet).
If the economics works for that
case, then the extension to a small community should be even more economical
due to the ability to share
resources and dampen large swings in energy and materials usage.
See: http://staff.washington.edu/larryg/Energy/off-grid.doc
for an analysis of that approach.
--
Larry Gales
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20110116/b4f6a457/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
| UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
| OTHER HELP: http://evdl.org/help/
| OPTIONS: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
