Why you should (or shouldn't) leave the grid

Andy Gauvin

Dec 15, 2010

I
Abstract
In this paper we will discuss the current energy consumption patterns of the US and and
focus in particular on the electrical energy required for the country. This electrical energy
needs to come about by some means and is most often generated with environmentally-
harming resources.

One can lessen their burden on the world by conserving their energy usage by conscious
means but it is much or effective if one's home infrastructure can handle the conservation.
For this reason we discuss currently mature methods suitable for separating oneself from
the electrical grid, or, at the very least decreasing dependance on it by increasing home
electrical efficiency and by taking advantage of free, renewable energy sources around
the home.

II
Table of Contents
List of Figures................................................................................................IV
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................V
Main Content...................................................................................................5
Bibliography...................................................................................Appendix A

III
List of figures
Figure 1: Data and graph of electrical consumption from EIA.gov[1], (5)

Figure 2: Pie Chart of energy sources used for production of electricity in the US[1], (6)

Figure 3: Quantitative results of the three families' usage trends discussed in “A

behavioral analysis of peaking in residential electrical-energy consumers”,
Kohlenberg, R. (1976)[4], (8)

Figure 4: Flat-plate collector solar water heater (9)

Figure 5: Batch collector solar water heater (10)

Figure 6: A passively solar-heated home (http://www.energysavers.gov) (11)

Figure 7: Map of solar intensities in the US (http://www.nrel.gov) (12)

Figure 8: Average wind speeds in the US at 80m (262 ft)

(http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp) (13)

IV
List of Abbreviations
EIA – US Energy Information Association
kWh – Kilo-Watt-Hours (one Joule-per-second for one hour)
BTU – British Thermal Unit (energy required to heat one pound of water 1ºF)
Ccf – Thousand Cubic feet
TCO – Total Cost of Ownership

V
 It is no secret that the US is one of the largest
consumers of energy in the world. For the last
century, the US has been consuming more and more
energy annually to power everything from hair
dryers to cars, planes and ships to gargantuan
machines that convert raw materials into the
makings of skyscrapers. While the US can meet
some degree of its own massive needs, it still is
forced to import raw energy sources from areas of
the world in surplus. This requires energy for the
construction of massive vehicles to move these raw
materials around, energy to actually move said
vehicles around and more often than we'd like to
admit, even more massive amounts of energy to
clean up the messes made in the process. The US
consumes energy to consume energy, and every
second of it blackens the skies.
How much energy does the US actually
consume? This information is in itself hard to nail
down quantitatively. Misinformation exists in every
level of the subject, from word of mouth of the
public to energy suppliers to offshoots of the
government, such as the EIA, that exist solely for the
purpose of monitoring, quantifying and reporting
energy usage[3]. In addition, energy reports are not
necessarily generated every year thus allowing
continuity holes in already sporadic data. Another
pitfall is the variety of units of measurement that
numbers are reported with; it is not uncommon to
find kWh, an SI unit most commonly used for
Figure 1: Data and graph of electrical consumption from EIA.gov[1]
Notice the conflicting values between Electricity Sales and Net Generation, along with
the substitution of comma for decimal in the graph. Accessed 12/9/2010.
measurement of electrical energy usage, to be paired
with BTU, a imperial unit, paired with therms,
another imperial unit, or Ccf. Still, other sources
provide no units of measurement at all.
In 2009, in terms of total energy, the USA
consumed about 90 quadrillion BTU, or about 1
billion tons of coal, 139 cubic miles of natural gas,
80 billion gallons of oil and another 19 quadrillion
BTU from other sources[1][2]. It is important to note
that while retrieving statistics of this nature one
should always double-check reported values with
several other sources. Several discrepancies
regularly exist between reported efficiencies of
energy production and in energy production in
general. EIA's own website provides quantitative
graphs of energy consumption that directly conflict
with adjacent, referencing text, and conflict with
other data presented elsewhere on the website within
in the same reporting period.
For the purposes of this document, we're
going to focus only on the electrical consumption of
the US. After some very careful research of the
information provided by the EIA, cross-referencing
with other sources, we arrive at a solid number of
3,575 billion kWh of net electrical energy
consumption for the US. That's 3.575 petawatt-hours
of electricity: 3.575 PWh is equivalent to
35,750,000,000,000 100-Watt light bulbs being run
for one hour. Such a number of average 40¢ light
bulbs, if arranged into a square matrix, would
5
consume 189 square miles and from our position on
Earth, illuminated, it would be just over six-times
brighter than the sun – for one hour; it's easy to see
that the US alone uses a gross amount of electricity
every year.
How does the US come by this unfathomable
amount of electricity? Most notable is that even
today the US depends chiefly on coal mines and
plants for the production of electricity. Coal is hardly
efficient as a combustible energy source and tops out
at about 40% due to the need to convert its thermal
energy into steam which is then used to turn
electrical turbines. This means that for every pound
of coal burned, at the very least, 60% of the coal is
wasted as unrecoverable heat, unrecoverable steam
or is converted into black, sticky smoke with a
vendetta against the ozone layer.
Further quick calculations show that in 2009,
the US consumed 936,536,000 tons of coal to meet
its electrical energy needs[1]. This translates to
97,712,600 pounds of CO2 emissions annually – to
offset such a staggering amount of pollution from
coal use in electricity generation for the US alone,
we would need to plant 22.4 million trees.
Similarly, natural gas, while more efficient
for energy production, still produces its own
Figure 2: Pie Chart of energy sources used
significant carbon footprint in its use. In 2009 the
for production of electricity in the US[1]
US consumed 6,887,907,000,000 cubic feet
(68,879,070,000 therms) of natural gas for electricity scrutinized whilst there was some from of
production[1]. environmental change in the home. In addition there
There must be some form of exit strategy. As were control periods in which electrical usage was
one lives their life, they too factor into these net still scrutinized, however the environment of the
usage figures. Everyone in the country is home was reset to as it were originally and families
accountable for these outrageous figures. The first were asked to use energy as they saw fit for their
obvious strategy would be to limit one's use of the own comfort.
electrical grid, which is driven by the ratios of There were a total of three control phases
energy sources shown in Figure 2, if one cannot and three experimental phases; the experiment began
leave it entirely. Conservation will save on not only with a control phase in order to provide an
your electric bill but on what is required of the immediate baseline for meaningful comparison to
energy plants and thus required of the the planet's following data. The chronology of each phase
buried energy resources. If everyone makes a proceeded as “Baseline I” (control), “Information”
conscious effort, change may be possible. (experimental), “Feedback”, “Baseline II”,
In 1976, there was a study conducted on the “Feedback+Incentive”, “Baseline III”. Each phase,
electrical usage habits of the average US family [4]. both experimental and control, lasted for a period of
The study called for the participation of three 15 days.
families deemed typical at the time by means of The first experimental phase, so dubbed
extensive voluntary surveys. “Information”, was just that: the phase began with
There were three experimental phases to this researchers proving information to the families about
study in which the family's electrical usage was their energy usage from the previous 15 days. There

6
as a pamphlet provided about the various appliances
of one's home and researchers cross-referenced this
data with how much energy each family had used
during the previous baseline period. The information
provided was similar to what an Eco-concious or
thrifty family would be able to find on their own via
independent research. Each family received
information about how their individual usage
(specifically their peaking behavior) was affecting
the environment and was asked to be conscious
about their usage for the period and to attempt to
conserve. After this initial instruction, researchers
left the family on their own for the remainder of the
period.
In experimental phase two, “Feedback, the
families received a device which monitored dynamic
electrical usage for the whole home. When the
home's electrical consumption exceeded peaking
rates, a 40W light bulb was illuminated for all
members of the home to see. Families were briefed
at the beginning of the phase and left alone until the
following phase.
“Feedback & Incentive” was the third and
final experimental phase of the experiment. In this
phase the feedback device was reinstalled (it had
been removed for the intervening control period) as
it had been during “Feedback”. Families were told
that if they could reduce their cumulative peaking
for the period by 100%, the researchers would
refund 200% of their electrical bill for the previous
control period and the “Feedback & Incentive”
period – the bill for that entire month would be paid
both to the electric company and to the family for
their participation.
The final results of this study were as
follows: the “Information” period made little to no
difference in the trend of cumulative electrical usage
peaking compared to the prior baseline; the
immediately following “Feedback” period showed a
reduction in cumulative peaking by about 25-30%.
“Baseline II” saw a return to peaking trends present
in “Baseline I”. The “Incentive & Feedback” period
produced peaking rates ~60% lower than present in
“Baseline I”. To finish, the final recorded period,
“Baseline III” saw a marked jump in cumulative
peaking trends, but was still roughly 5-10% lower
than the trends present in “Baseline I”. While these
end results seem promising at first glance, the paper
later explains that because the experiment was
conducted between the months of January and
March, a reduction in peaking of this type was to be
expected anyway; in short, without incentive nor
feedback, armed with information alone the families
consumed the same amount of electricity in the same
pattern as they had before the experiment even
began.
The lesson to be learned from Kohlenberg's
excellent research is that families, armed with
information and desire alone, are generally unable to
effectively curb their electrical usage habits. Proper
dynamic usage monitoring and feedback equipment
is essential for any effect to be felt from families'
desire to consume less. A post-monthly summary of
usage (eg, one's monthly electric bill) along with all
the static information and more one would need to
make informed usage decisions is simply not enough
to do so. For whichever individual reason, be it
circumstantial, a lack of commitment from all
members of the household, preoccupation with more
pertinent matters inside and outside of the home, just
plain apathy, or a combination of all, information
and drive alone an energy efficient home they
generally do not make.
So what then, is the next option? Many
people have already run out and purchased Energy-
Star certified appliances and electronics. While the
Energy-Star branding has suffered in recent years in
terms of authentic energy reductions due to ever-lax
requirements for the branding, the shock wave it
created is evident. Today, appliances are rated in
efficiency as one of their leading selling points.
Another option is the use of small, inline,
instant water heaters over the current US status-quo
of large tanks that are always kept readily piping hot.
Inline water heaters have shown to achieve the same
water temperatures with up to 90% less energy than
their large-tanked cousins. Such water heaters,
which are installed around the home wherever hot
water is desired, have already seen wide acceptance
overseas throughout Europe and Asia; for whatever
reason, the US continues to lag behind, still
producing and selling outdated technology.
The beauty of using energy-efficient
appliances and inline water heaters is that the
conservation of energy occurs in transparency to the
end user - the user lives their life normally and
consumes less in doing so. The infrastructure of
their home is busy handling conservation so that the
7
Figure 3: Quantitative results of the three families' usage trends discussed in “A behavioral analysis of peaking
in residential electrical-energy consumers”, Kohlenberg, R. (1976)[4]
8
end user need not be while still allowing light
concerned about it. to strike it and heat to
Energy-efficient escape from it into the
appliances and inline liquid. The insulation
water heaters alone will between the thermal
only partially reduce the block is required to
carbon emissions a home prevent rust, in the case
is responsible for, of a metallic thermal
however. block, or solar-oxidized
What is required chemicals, in the case of
is a complete change of a polymer thermal block,
the energy infrastructure from escaping into the
supporting one's home to heated liquid.
cease or at least lessen The entire box is
the dependance on the insulated to prevent as
grid for provision of much convectional
electrical energy. thermal loss as possible;
There are several the translucent face is
feasible means by which glazed to curb the radiant
one can lessen their
Figure 4: Flat-plate collector solar water heater thermal losses through it
dependance on or leave the electric grid entirely. since it cannot be insulated as well against
Passive Solar, Solar and Wind are the energy- convectional losses as the sides.
harvesting schemes that are currently mature at the There are variations in how exactly these
consumer scale and thus currently appropriate for thermal conversion boxes are constructed: another
use in the home. type of collector, known as a “Batch collector”, is
“Passive Solar” is a term that can describe instead based around a black, hard plastic pass-
several different particular configurations; the basic through fluid tank inside of a fully translucent,
premise in all is the idea of converting sunlight into weatherproofed, glazed box. The pass-through fluid
some form of usable heat. In all installations one tank replaces the thermal block of the flat-plate style
should attempt to conserve as much energy as solar collector. Batch collectors are less efficient
possible in the actual collection of solar energy than flat-plate style solar collectors.
(hence the prefix “passive”). For the purposes of this Common to all forms of solar collectors is a
paper, two end configurations of passive solar single inlet port, in which cold water flows into, and
energy harvesting will be considered: Passive solar a single outlet port, in which the solar-heated water
water heating (commercially known as “solar water flows out. These ports are arranged so that the cold
heaters”) and passive solar room heating. inlet is on the bottom while hot outlet is on the top;
Passive solar water heating entails a thermal in a fully-passive solar water heater the heated
solar collector of some form placed outside in a water floats above the cold and out of the outlet of
location that receives adequate sunlight for as long the collector by convection. Fully-passive solar
as possible during the day. water heaters are advantageous in that they consume
The most common solar collector, known as no further energy in transporting the water back to
a ”Flat-plate collector”, is simply a hollow, the home, although it is a less efficient, more
weatherproof box. The external side of the box complicated and more expensive overall system than
(perpendicular to the sun) is translucent and glazed if the water were pumped.[5]
while the internal surface perpendicular to the sun In colder climates where water is known to
has an insulated dark plate. This dark plate, usually freeze, fully-passive solar water heaters are not an
made of some dark metal or polymer, is insulated by option: the solar collector and the insulated return
glass or some other transparent polymer to separate pipes would be damaged by the freezing water. What
it entirely from the liquid to be placed inside the box must be used is a fully-closed “indirect” system in

9
which anti-freeze is circulated, by means of an material. This allows solar energy from the desert
electric pump, in place of the water to be heated. sun to collect in the thermal mass, never passing into
When the heated antifreeze is returned indoors it the home in the daylight, where it is re-emitted into
passes through a heat exchanger that heats the colder the night air and into the home after sundown thus
water. Systems with a pump are known as “Active maintaining a comfortable temperature indoors night
solar water heaters” and will cost slightly more to and day requiring no air conditioning at all. Such
install and operate due to the electric pump and homes have been built by indigenous peoples of the
supporting hardware. southwest US and around the world for several
Regardless of choice of solar collector or if thousand years.
the final system is passive or active, the heated water As shown in Figure 6, there are a few
is, in general, not hot enough from the tap for methods by which solar-heated homes can be
modern consumption in a solar-heated system alone. controlled. Solar-heated homes require large
What is done in most systems is the heated water is windows facing the calculated path of the sun to
then further heated to the desired temperature by allow light inside the home to the thermal mass; the
conventional means. In passive systems the water is main method of control is by manipulation of
consumed as needed while in active systems the shutters or screens which directly affect the solar
water is stored in a separate “preheated” water tank. energy passing into the room through these
These preheated tanks contain the heat exchanger windows.
internally so that the water is constantly being For colder climates, a calculated length of
warmed. The considerably smaller temperature roofing overhang is required to minimize manual
differential with a solar-assisted system converts to control of the shutters and allow usage of the large
instant savings in conventional energy costs. windows during summer. This overhang is designed
Passive-solar room heating refers to building in such a way that the winter sun is allowed to pass
one's home in such a way that the sun provides into the room, heating it, while the sun is blocked
much, if not all, of the required heat for the home. during its summer path. Since the successful
Much like the solar collector in solar water heaters, a functionality of this overhang is entirely dependent
solar-heated home makes use of some sort of on the latitude of the home and other immediate
thermal block designed into the home. Typical environmental factors, its design needs to be
thermal masses for solar room heating are quite large calculated and implemented for each home on an
horizontally, while only individual basis.
3-4” thick; they are A final method of
ideally as large as the control arises from
floor or an entire side of glazing placed directly on
a home. Heat is stored in the thermal mass or on
this apparatus (be it of thin tiles immediately
stone, concrete, earth or above it. Glazing reflects
containers of water) the solar energy back into
throughout the day and the room thus heating the
re-emitted into the room room immediately during
at night. the day at the loss of
The converse of available heat to be re-
this is also true: homes emitted at night. This
built in desert climates variable is manipulated in
can benefit substantially either direction by
by by placing the manipulating the luster of
thermal masses outside the glaze.
their homes by Although passive
constructing the outer solar, of any type, may
walls of the home of the Figure 5: Batch collector solar water heater seem complicated and

10
thus a costly investment it is a sound, tried-and-true years have photovoltaics slowly reached an
idea and should be implemented in all homes. Once efficiency of usable stature due to our own
implemented and tuned, passive solar systems are hindrances in the quantum world. To date, the most
incredibly reliable and require little-to-no user efficient solar panel ever produced boasts an
intervention for continued operation[5]. They efficiency of 42.8%; it exists only in an experimental
immediately and considerably offset heating costs of semiconductor laboratory and would cost a
all sorts by intelligently manipulating the design of consumer over a million dollars to purchase if it
one's home to take advantage of the free solar energy were even usable outside of the lab.
already present on a daily basis. The only possible The typical panels available to consumers
drawbacks of such a system are investment costs, are around 12-19% efficient and can be purchased
which, in general, are paid back within a few years for around $2.50 to $3.00 per watt, if purchased in
depending on utilization and specific bulk (~$500/panel for typical 180W panels). The
configuration[5]. number of solar panels actually required for a
Existing homes will not be able to take particular installation will of course vary due to
advantage of solar room heating due to the very several factors; the first variance being how much
specific, individualized architectural design qualities power one actually intends to generate with their
required, however solar system. If one wishes to
water heaters are easily leave the grid entirely,
installable in any living supporting themselves
arrangement. with on-site renewable
Passive solar energy along, initial
works to efficiently investment can be
offset the heating and preventativly high without
cooling requirements of significant lifestyle and
one's home, but with the home appliance changes.
exception of a handful The general formula
of heavily specialized to follow is to first
systems scattered calculate how much
throughout the world, energy is required for a
the best it can do is Figure 6: A passively solar-heated home particular installation. If
offset costs; (http://www.energysavers.gov) self-sufficiency is the end
conventional means of goal, current consumption
heating are still required for a livable home. Passive plus 20% is a safe number to strive for; a system that
solar also provides no electricity; it only works to overproduces by 20% will cause much fewer
greatly reduce what electricity may already be problems on cloudy days than a system to produces
required for temperature control. Thus, further exact quota. The average home in 2008 in the US
renewable systems for the home must be consumed 920 kWh a month[1].
investigated for a livable modern environment. The next largest number to consider is how
Photovoltaic cells (more commonly known much light is actually available for conversion to
as “solar panels”) have existed since 1883. They electricity at a specific latitude. The equator presents
2
work to directly generate electricity using photons about 4.2 kWh⋅m of usable solar energy; this is not
day
by means of quantum mechanical effects felt in
carefully, scientifically crafted sheets of silicon. to say this is the maximum that can be found in the
Ideally, one photon converts to one freed electron; world. The southwestern US experiences on average
2
kWh⋅m
sunlight is an immense number of photons and the 5−5.5 day with some parts as high as
US demands the flow of an immense number of 7.0 kWh⋅m2
(hence the historic use of passive solar
electrons – it seems an obvious match. The caveat is day
that the ideal case is far from the practical case: cooling in this area). Western Massachusetts will
despite their old age, only within the last twenty

11
Figure 7: Map of solar intensities in the US (http://www.nrel.gov)
12
 2

provide an average of 4.19 kWh⋅m day

while areas as about 80 m. For the majority of residential systems
such turbine mounting heights are simply not
high as up as Alaska will provide an average of feasible; it is important to have proper measurements
2
3.0 kWh⋅m at minimum[8]. taken of the average wind speeds at the altitude and
day
With the basic constraints in mind, locations of feasibility for a particular location. A
consumers will need to shop around to select turbine with no wind is not going to generate any
components that are appropriate for the installation: power.
a panel that is only 14.5% efficient will only yield an Once an average windspeed and power
kWh⋅m
2
requirement are obtained, the US government
effective 0.608 day if the 4.19 of western
recommends following their guideline equation to
Massachusetts were provided to it, for instance. If select a properly sized wind turbine[10]:
this hypothetical panel were 1.27 m2 in size, there
2
would need to be 60.5 m of photovoltaic AEO =0.01328 D 2 V 3
paneling, or about 47 panels, to safely provide the where:
kWh
average 920 month required by the average home. AEO = Annual energy output, year
kWh

At $500 a panel, the final bill for photovoltaics D = Rotor diameter, feet
alone would be $23,500.00 – it's easy to see why V = Annual average wind speed, mph
photovoltaic efficiency is a desirable trait[9].
Another option for personal electricity
generation is wind energy. As with solar electricity According to the guideline equation, with
generation, some care will be needed in order to our average US home consuming 920 kWh (plus
year
select appropriately sized equipment for a particular
installation. One should begin by determining how 10% leeway), if it were located in western
much energy they'll need to produce for their Massachusetts where there is an average wind speed
circumstances and end goals. For wind-based of 11 mph, we would need a turbine with a rotor
electricity generation, a
good overcapacity tolerance
is 10%, as opposed to solar-
based electricity generation
which requires 15-20%.
Figure 8 shows data
compiled by the US
government on average
annual wind speeds across
the US. To correctly size
equipment, one should find
out what wind speeds are
available for their
installation – most wind
maps available have been
compiled with the idea of
future commercial
expansion in mind. The best
wind power efficiency is
reached when wind turbines
are mounted high enough
that ground-level Figure 8: Average wind speeds in the US at 80m (262 ft)
obstructions are irrelevant: (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp)

13
diameter of 26 feet across to meet our theoretical
needs entirely.
Of course, wind power is currently a hot
topic subject to attention from several start-ups.
There are a plethora of different turbine designs: the
classic three-blade, another which only has one
blade and counter-weights in place of the missing
blades, there are several vertical (omnidirectional)
turbines and there are even more designed to be
compact and/or quiet in operation at the expense of
output power. Each design has its own efficiency
ratings, features, drawbacks – the compilation of
each is beyond the scope of this paper.
Generally, one can expect to pay between
$15,000 to $20,000 to purchase an adequate wind
turbine for electric generation for the average home.
For the average US home, a turbine that is rated
between 8kW and 15kW should suffice, provided
there is an adequate average wind speed of at least
10 mph[10].
A final cost of leaving the grid is the
purchase of appropriate power conditioning
equipment. While photovoltaics and wind turbines
produce electricity, they generate DC electricity, and
usually at some strange voltage at that; output
voltages of 6, 12, 14, 32.4 and 48 volts are quite
common. Every appliance for the home in the US
runs on 120 volts AC – meaning that the DC current
produced by the electricity generating equipment
will need to be inverted, or converted to AC and then
transformed to the higher voltage.
Since the inverter of one's system essentially
becomes the power source for everything in the
home, it is important to correctly size this piece of
equipment as well: a calculated maximum load plus
20%. A properly-sized inverter for the average US
home will cost between $1500 and $2000.
One final component that is absolutely
essential of a residential power production
infrastructure is a properly sized battery. There are
days where no wind blows, and there are days when
the sun doesn't shine... and night as well. Without a
backup source of energy in these dead spells an off-
grid system is quite literally left in the dark. A
battery works alongside a controller to intelligently
capture and store already-generated electricity that
isn't seeing immediate consumption. When energy
sources cease, the controller switches the battery
from the role of power receiver to power provider
and the battery begins to directly feed the inverter,
thus continually powering the home without any
interruptions in service and without user any
intervention to do so. A correctly sized battery will
cost between about as much as a correctly sized
inverter, and the controller half the cost of the
battery.
However, in the end, all these items being
purchased and stitched together, the end user is free
to live their life without concern of consumption,
without needing to constantly intervene and
manipulate the equipment. The home's
infrastructure handles all duties electrical, as it was
designed to do so. Such a system, once
implemented, regardless of the path from point A to
point B, solves the issues that Kohlenberg identified
in his 1976 study.
Surely there are some problems to be seen.
First and foremost is the initial investment cost. A
tally of necessary equipment already mentioned runs
up a bill of ~$28,000 for full solar off-grid
conversion and ~$22,000 for full wind off-grid
conversion. This price point alone is enough to sway
away consumers, and tug it far out of reach of
desiring consumers based on their socioeconomic
role[3][11]. The old adage, “It takes money to make
money”, or in this case, offset destructive
consumption habits, applies all too well to this
scenario, nationwide.
Or, if one has purposely designed their
system too small in order to lessen the blow to their
budget, they may be forced consume less.
Consumption of any more than what the system
could provide could spell frequent blackouts; this
would be a twisted form of the feedback that
Kohlenberg provided to his test subjects. While
Kohlenberg's research shows that such feedback,
while present, does curb usage habits, feedback of
the nature of a loss of service until the next day
would undoubtedly spell hindered quality of life and
a sheepish return to the grid.
Other possible costs may be maintenance
related; if one leaves the grid they are doing so
alone. A call to public service at 2:40am in the midst
of a severe snowstorm will not guarantee you power.
Further, one must expect that parts will break and
repairs will need to be made – living off the grid
means that one functions as their own “public
service” to the other members of their own home.
14
 Further, there are, ironically enough,
environmental costs to be considered. Like any other
appliance of the home, energy production devices
are heavily-specialized pieces of equipment. Here in
the US, that means that all their difficult to
comprehend, expensive to produce, or labor-
intensive constituents are made overseas and
assembled at the last second stateside, if at all. We
do not live in an environmentally clean energy
economy; such practices mean that these constituent
pieces, after construction in faraway lands, must be
shipped back by nothing more than diesel cargo
ships, thus contributing substantial pollution guilt
even before their first intended use. This fact alone
has been a major point of criticism of current wind-
technology initiatives[11].
Everything will eventually break down and
move on; in the case of consumer equipment this
means disposal. Disposal is another area that has yet
to be dealt with effectively in the states. Electricity-
producing equipment will undoubtedly contain some
high degree of copper beneath its skin. There will
undoubtedly be other precious materials such as gold
and neodymium magnets contained within this skin.
When the US ships off its refuse back to faraway
lands that are lax in control of conservation of the
environment (ever requiring diesel for its desire to
do so) locals have found quick revenue in liberating
and harvesting these precious materials contained
with in. If said skin is plastic, the job is quite easy:
simply set the whole unit ablaze; the plastic burns
off into the atmosphere leaving the precious minute
scraps behind for the taking. Plastic is an oil-based
product; ever-more diesel is burned into the air from
conception to burial of any product.
As it turns out, with a bit of research one can
easily find that at present, there are a plethora of
local incentives to leave the grid. Numerous property
and sales tax exemptions, immediate government
rebates of up to 30% of the system's total cost and
other monetary incentives of various forms are
activated if the government is made aware of one's
aversion and actions to move away from fossil-fuel
consumption[12][11]. Awards and regulations vary by
state, and so must also be researched as part of the
initial investment in designing a system.
To dispel any fears of dropped service by
purposely under-designing one's system to remain in
one's budget: under-designed systems typically work
in harmony with power provided through the grid.
The controller serves (ever more) as an intelligent
device that monitors usage several thousand times a
second and decides upon the most efficient usage of
the energy sources it has provided to it. The net
effect is a consumption offset like that of passive
solar technologies. This offset is equal to only as
much as one is willing to invest in their system. As it
turns out, the nearly unanimous majority of off-grid
systems today are only partial implementations of
the off-grid label.
Maintenance is similarly not as bad as one
may initially expect: solar-based electricity
generation systems are reported to last for 25 years
untouched, wind for 15-20, due solely to their
electromechanical moving parts. Apart from an
occasional dusting of the collector required for solar
systems in locations with little precipitation, these
devices withstand the test of time and may likely
outlive several components of one's home. Further, if
trouble should arise during a winter event, your
response time may undoubtedly be much smaller
than that of public service's. You put the system
together, you know what it needs.
While disposal has remained an issue to be
responsibly dealt with worldwide, the expected
longevity of these devices should at least lessen the
expected blow to the Earth when these reach their
final resting place. Perhaps in 10-15 years' time,
such matters will have begun to be dealt with...
Finally, the US shows no end in sight of a
cessation of its massive imports and thus
consumption of diesel to continue doing so.
However, market adoption of these devices of any
sort leads to research and development, increased
production and hence lower prices, which breeds
market adoption. Substantial market adoption of
renewable energy for the home and commercial
sector will very well spell research and development
and eventual market adoption of alternatives to
diesel. Unfortunately, such alternatives do not
currently exist and we must bear the brunt of the
momentum that has been created for the last century.
A new adage, “It takes diesel to kill off diesel” is
appropriate.
In summary, passive solar technologies are
low-hanging fruit to be consumed by all those
interested in reducing their bills and emissions and
by the home-project oriented alike. The simplicity
15
and efficiency of these systems give them their protestors in no time at all).
strength. Every household in the US should make For these situations, a clean supply of
use of passive solar technologies, especially with the reliable power from the grid is the only solution for
inherent payback period of only a few years, which their scenario. Hence, arguably, the best solution is
turns into net monetary gain ever-after. not to leave the grid, but to change it. A hybrid
While the initial investment cost and slower approach can be taken: a smaller investment which
payback period has historically and continues to be a includes passive solar technologies (obviously)
major roadblock to full-blown off-grid electrical along with a small to medium sized on-site electrical
system, recent government incentives that are generation system will immediately offset costs and
present offset, if not entirely negate, these guilt. From here, lobbying by non-apathetic
undesirable traits. An investment of any sort in a individuals and education will continue and hasten
responsible direction of consumption will be paid the renewable resources already seen entering and
back, in monetary terms more immediately and the supporting the grid today. As mentioned, further
conservation of the planet for following generations adoption of the technologies by any sector,
in the long term. especially the energy sector, spells more efficient
In conclusion, off-grid systems, which have production and lower costs for the technology.
always been desirable due to the dependency The end result will be ubiquitous adoption of
stranglehold energy providers have on the US renewable energy resources; the driving hand here
population, have become in the last decade within being that we have consumed most of the dirty
reach for more and more people. Varying levels of energy that our planet has to offer. The remaining
investment in self-sufficiency spell equally question is if we can reach this adoption quick
diminishing levels of guilt of one's burden on the enough to offset any amount the damage we've
already abused planet. already, and continue to cause.
The sobering fact is that while such systems
are theoretically possible for every home in the US
for any home or property owner with some amount
of drive, the consumption habits in the US show that
the residential sector only accounts for 22.4% of net
energy usage (2009). The rest of the energy is nearly
evenly divided between the commercial, industrial
and transportation sectors[1].
Big business tends to operate differently than
most households and will only adopt a new
technology if it will spell immediate profits and they
are not the flagship for said technology. There is a
lower TCO associated with business maneuvers that
are steady and straight-on once a business has
progressed beyond start-up.
In addition, despite these technologies being
within reach to most if not all property owners,
100% adoption is a false hope. Apathy is a trait
evident during every election, and will surely play a
role as these technologies gain significant
momentum in the coming decade.
The fact of the matter is that businesses and
apathetics alike will not install these systems on their
property unless the property is purchased with it
already present or they are forced by law (which
would likely convert the apathetics into strong

16
Bibliography
[1] “US Energy Information Association” http://www.eia.gov/ (Dec, 2010)

[2] “What is Energy? Conversion and Resource Tables”

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm
(Dec, 2010)

[3] Brown, M. A. (2001). "Market failures and barriers as a basis for clean energy
policies" Energy Policy, 29(14), 1197.

[4] Kohlenberg, R. (1976). "A behavioral analysis of peaking in residential electrical-

energy consumers." J.Appl.Behav.Anal., 9(1), 13.

[5] “Energy Savers: Solar Water Heaters”

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=1285
0 (Dec, 2010)

[6] “Energy Savers: Five Elements of Passive Solar Home Design”

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/designing_remodeling/index.cfm/mytop
ic=10270 (Dec, 2010)

[7] Beck, Roger B.; Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, Dahia Ibo
Shabaka, (1999). World History: Patterns of Interaction. Evanston, IL: McDougal
Littell. ISBN 0-395-87274-X.

[8] “NREL: Dynamic Maps, GIS Data, and Analysis Tools”

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html (Dec, 2010)

[9] Labay, D. G. (1981). "Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of
solar energy systems." The Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 271.

[10] “Energy Savers: Estimating a Small Wind Turbine's Annual Energy Output”
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/electricity/index.cfm/mytopic=11020
(Dec, 2010)

[11] Painuly, J. P. (2001). "Barriers to renewable energy penetration a framework for

analysis." Renewable Energy, 24(1), 73.

[12] “Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)”

http://www.dsireusa.org/ (Dec, 2010)