What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
195 Comments
- lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -7/+267@clinch67
And the very first automobiles were only affordable by the rich. Now they're affordable by the masses.
And the first portable phones used to be car phones and only available to the rich. Now everyone seems to have them.
It's because of the "early adopters" that we see new technology develop, become accepted and come down in price. Instead of laughing you should be joining the rest of us and thanking these people who are trying to move our economy toward sustainability by investing in it themselves. - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -13/+165Worth it because he is:
1) Off the grid
2) Creating NO pollution
3) Possibly selling power back to the grid
4) It is really f'ing cool!
How is this not justified? I'd do it if I had the money... and a house. - SlackerCSB, on 10/12/2007, -30/+122@clinch67, you are so clueless. If you did the math, you'd see it's a genius move.
The $500,000 will justify itself, after saving $200 a month for 208 years, in 2215. - dickeytk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+98The title is a little misleading, he wasn't doing it to save money, like he said "Nothing is as wildly expensive as destroying the whole planet."
- raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59You have to start somewhere.
Don't frown on progress no matter how minimal it may seem, because little bits of progress at a time eventually rebuild the world. - otto422, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Nuclear energy is not safe enough for many people in New Jersey but allowing your neighbor to store 10,000 gallons of hydrogen in the garage is not a safety issue.
- kazersoza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29New in the news .. "Local Utility truck accidentally runs over Mr. Strizki"
- LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I'm 100% for solar power and alternative power sources for homes but I couldn't be bothered to even bat an eye until it's:
1. Efficient enough to fuel a geek's very power-hungry home
2. Cost effective (initial cost vs savings over time).
Being off the grid is amazing but at $500k, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this thing will ever pay for itself. People like this are NEEDED to set the groundwork for the rest of us but until that time comes, I'll be shackled to juice lines. - moofer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I really don't understand what is so revolutionary about this. I haven't paid an electric bill in 3 years. My neighbors are using electricity I'm generating and selling back to PG&E. In the summer, I generate a massive credit, that I work off in the winter, during the cloudy months. My system is sized nearly perfectly for my consumption, generating about $100 of credit per year that goes unused. It's all about buying a house with a good south-facing roof, and no large obstructions between you and the open air. This aspect should be factored into zoning and/or purchasing decisions for any homeowner, IMHO. There really is little need for these massive electrical companies and their power plants. My system cost me $26,000 and I'm self-sustaining.
- nathanwalker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I saw an article about this on Slashdot a while back. I gotta say, the conversation was a lot more intellectual about this particular subject there...
Of course, I don't come to Digg for the intellectual conversations. I come for the comments like "Ya this dude will probably be "dissapeared" soon by THE MAN."
*hangs head* - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I was paid to do it by Exxon-Mobile.
- swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25@thatgeekygirl
dugg down because you said "Evar" GB2AOL
@jpop
congrats on reiterating the statement of the first person to comment. - N00F, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The cost of developing his system was high. That's standard procedure for a prototype system. It's one of a kind and the parts used are not mass produced. The very important thing was he did it and it works. Now that the concept has been proven, research can be done to improve on efficiency and manufacturing process. As was pointed out in other posts, take for example any popular electronics device. The very first CD player, when a prototype cost millions of dollars to develop. If you wanted one of these prototypes for youself, it would easily cost $500,000. Then the device finally hit the market. The first CD players cost well over a thousand dollars. Today, the technology has been refined, the manufacturing process streamlined and you can buy raw components to build a CD player for pennies. Cellphones, Plasma TVs, LCD monitors and now Hydrogen systems to power your house.
The point is, it has to start with an idea. A person proves the idea and then it goes to development, refining and finally mass market. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17It's pathetic that this "vocal minority" of people who can't understand the importance of such a project are always ready to pounce on an announcement like this. Of course it's not "cost effective" today, but perhaps when you've grown up a bit and start worrying about whether your kids will be fighting in the middle east to defend our access to dwindling resources, or when your grandkids are caught up in a new "energy cold war" with China over who is going to get the last few drops of oil left, you might have finally come around.
To all the scoffers:
This isn't just about the environment, this is also about national security.
This guy isn't some fool who wasted money, he's a pioneer and a visionary who is leading the way to resolve the problems YOUR kids will have to face. And it's a good thing he's doing it too, because you're obviously not going to lift your finger... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I think so many people are missing a major point - self sustainability.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -19/+32"regular houses routinely re-sell at OVER $500k."
Can we say "out of touch"? - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22"The average home where I live is 300,000. Those are ***** middle-class AVERAGE homes."
Paris, is that you? - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Wait til he gets his tax bill for being a fuel producer.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"clinch and slacker what you're not at all considering, oddly, is the inflation of energy costs"
Ever heard of interest? He could have put the money in the bank and had more than enough from the interest to pay all of his utility bills indefinitely.
Everyone here also seems to be assuming that the maintenance costs on this system is zero, which I'd be willing to bet over the next 10 years is far from correct. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution (no matter what Al does.) Why do these people never think about buying smaller houses/cars and actually consuming LESS energy in the first place? - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15http://www.google.com/search?q=West+Amwell%2C+N.J.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"We've been called by some A-list Hollywood types interested in powering their islands."
Oh god... - tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10from the article:
Renewable-energy experts: "No, the system is too expensive"
Home owner Strizki's response: "Nothing is as wildly expensive as destroying the whole planet." - Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This sounds like an awesome step in the right direction. However, I am concerned about the idea of storing all that hydrogen in pressurized tanks for safety reasons. Pressurized hydrogen + electrical spark = goodbye house (and neighbors). Fortunately, scientists are currently developing sophisticated polymer network materials that can accept large amounts of hydrogen in a "stable" way. If that research goes anywhere, it will be a tremendous boon to the hydrogen car, as well.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@nsmike
Has anyone considered the environmental consequences of electrolyzing that much water?
Honest answer to an honest question. When H2O is broken down by electrolysis into H & O2 with the H stored and the O2 released, yes there is an increase in environmental O2. However, when the fuel cell uses the stored H, it recombines it with atmospeheric O2 to make H2O again.
Hydrogen energy is really more of a "battery" in a sense than an "energy source." - 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If he wanted to make money, he could've used mini-hydro, micro-hydro, or wind power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_hydro
If he wanted to save money he could've super insulated his home, or used corn or a pellet stove for heating.
This was just a "look what I can do!" project... - veruus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You understand where that grant's 250k came from, right?
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Just like Birdman.
- itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ Gongji
Mass production doesn't just come from sitting there and thinking about it a lot. It takes capital investment and research, which means money. He is providing that money to the people who need it. He also provides incentive by showing that there is a demand for this technology. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Granted, one house isn't much, but consider wide-spread adoption, and we have to consider the fact that electrolyzed water is:
1. Contributing excess oxygen to the atmosphere. Not sure what the overall consequences of that would be, but still.
2. Once broken down, no longer water. What happens when we start breaking down that much water? Does the planet lose water overall?"
"Contributing excess oxygen to the atmosphere." -- Not a problem. When the hydrogen is used, either through combustion or a fuel cell, it binds with oxygen to produce water. This also nullifies your concern #2, since water is the byproduct once the hydrogen is used.
Along the same lines as you are thinking, there is another problem that could arise in a hydrogen economy. If hydrogen production on a large, planetary scale were in full force, and high percentage of hydrogen were derived from fossil fuels such natural gas, oil and coal; we would actually be introducing NEW water to the environment on a massive scale. This sounds benign, but water (vapor) is actually one of the most powerful green house gases out there. - sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"...even on the cloudiest of winter days..."
Solar panels are not powered by light, but rather the sun's rays. - inajeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So no one is reading the rest of the article? Proof of Concepts are expensive but they serve a purpose...
"Now that he's demonstrated his idea works, his goal is to make the system better and less expensive. (For example, the 10 propane tanks could be replaced by one high-pressure hydrogen tank buried underground.) With mass production, he believes he could get the price of the system, not including the solar panels, down to about $50,000."
If more than one person or company put's their mind to it I'm sure they can get it even lower. - haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Just wait.. give it 2 weeks and the government will be round to collect their share...
- ghostborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Check with your homeowners insurance before you hook up energy savings devices.
You may find yourself with no insurance and a burned down house. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It may not be the best system in terms of PURE money results, but there are some non-monetary benefits that you haven't considered. The first of these benefits is that it's environmentally friendly (in the long run, at least), and the second of these benefits, which in my opinion is much greater is that it leaves you independent and self-sufficient. This means that YOU still have power during blackouts, and that YOU don't need to take any crap from 'The Man' about your energy use.
- woogley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9the article is forgetting an important luxury: being the only house on the block with electricity when the power goes out.
- john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I've noticed that about half the diggers who responded missed the point entirely, thanks to the misleading title.. The point of this man's project wasn't to save money in the short term.. It was to help bring the nation slightly closer to self-sustainability, and showing that it can be done is a significant first step. Of course it's initially expensive to pull all of this off, but as it becomes more popular, the price will go down as it always does.
- fastawdtsi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7$100 per month energy bill for a 3,500 sq/ft house? I don't think so, try $300-$400 per month, which adds up to over $4000 per year, or around $120,000 in 30 years. Never mind the fact that he fuels his transportation with excess hydrogen.
Two thumbs up to solar-dude. - hockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I can't believe some of these comments.
The bottom line is what this guy did is cool. Just plain flat out geek cool. - kragg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Why would anybody do this????"
Proof of concept. - Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Al Gore will need 15 of these for his Mansion.
- GamerzCorner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i live in florida and 500k for a home is a steal lol i wish the avg home price here was 500k!
Bottom line is lettruthout is right it is way to expensive to justify for the average consumer now...
10 years from now I'm sure the majority of us will be "off the grid"
I think it is great we are making strides toward becoming self sufficient. And unfortunately we are going to have to throw a lot more money at this "problem" until it becomes economical for the avg person. - 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have no problem with this man trying to save money and the environment.
I have a HUGE problem with an individual storing a large amount of hydrogen on his property.
"hydrogen is stored in 10-1,000-gallon propane tanks on Strizki's property"
Hydrogen leaks are notoriously hard to trace.
If Mr. Strizki used a "hydrogen on demand" type of generating system, I'd be all for it.
He'll probably not have a problem with his storage system, but an someone who's not an engineer might try this and not be so lucky... - dusanmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@noahhoward: Article is muddy as to what the total cost of 500000$ is but if you look through it and costs of needed equipment and you'll realize that 500000$ is for this system alone (not the house and/or the property). Also consider the costs he suggests for mass produced systems(50000$ for everything but solar panels + 80000$ for solar panels) and in the near future this will not go much below 130000$. Way too much. Living nearby, my yearly power cost is about 1500$ and I'd go into such system if it could at least repay itself over the lifetime of the mortgage: 30 years: 45000$. Knowing the state of technology, it could happen in our lifetimes.
On another note, This Old House had episode featuring such (sounds identical) experimental system built by some University (forgot the name). Size (other than solar cells) is already acceptable (about two large sheds stack one over the other (12x12x12 feet approximately). - chadkazulu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you are currently spending $400/month and the clean-er option is $600/month... the difference is $200... and the rate is fixed. Were you paying $400 ten years ago? 20? What will you be paying in 20 years? I'm sure it will be more.
Also, you forgot to include your gasoline expenses. How much does that adjust your $200 savings per month? Are fuel prices trending upwards or downwards?
One more thing, he paid $250K... somebody else picked up the tab for the rest. He has also promoted his business, gained experience, and developed a model program... the deal just keeps getting better. - fastawdtsi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Try reading the whole article...
"...Strizki lives with his wife..." - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Has anyone considered the environmental consequences of electrolyzing that much water?
Granted, one house isn't much, but consider wide-spread adoption, and we have to consider the fact that electrolyzed water is:
1. Contributing excess oxygen to the atmosphere. Not sure what the overall consequences of that would be, but still.
2. Once broken down, no longer water. What happens when we start breaking down that much water? Does the planet lose water overall?
I am being genuine in asking these questions. I don't know the answers, and I'm not making arguments for or against. There may be answers to these questions already, I just don't know them. - adrianrf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@exstatica
so, you went to the trouble to model this -- why not build in some year-over-year trend factors while you're at it?
gasoline prices are clearly not gonna stay flat. nor will electricity prices. - crouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a recurring theme in this discussion. He did not build this to save money now, or even ever in his lifetime. He did it because he could and he wanted to show that it could be done. The person in the article set out to create a completely self sufficient energy system utilizing renewable resources as a proof of concept. I gather that people other then him wanted to see this done as he was granted $250k to complete the project. That means he came up with the idea presented it and someone with the funding thought it was worth investigating gave him the money and told him to have at.
One extremely popular thing that is mentioned when talking about national drug care and our medical costs is that while it only costs cents, or a few dollars, to produce medicine on the market the first pill cost $4 million dollars to research and create. The same principle applies here. It costs a lot of money to create the first one, however after that more money is invested to get the technology in a state to be mass produced and fiscally reachable by the average consumer. - rajulkabir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Let's see if his electric bill was $250 a month normally, it would take him over 83 years to recoup his investment of 250k."
83 years from now there will be no more oil, and billions more people. You really think energy costs are going to remain flat?
(unless we figure out a way to make oil out of people...) - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And then, to take that further, to be the one of the few houses in the country to have electricity when we're nuked and the entire infrastructure collapses.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 196 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is