Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Running Your Electric Meter Backwards

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jan 23, 2007 02:23 AM
from the power-to-the-peeps dept.
kog777 writes to note a story in International Business Times about "net metering," or generating your own power without disconnecting from the grid. Forty states have laws allowing individuals to do this, and many of them offer subsidies and tax breaks for people who do. From the article: "When the sun shines bright on their home in New York's Hudson Valley, John and Anna Bagnall live out a homeowner's fantasy. Their electricity meter runs backward. Solar panels on their barn roof can often provide enough for all their electricity needs. Sometimes — and this is the best part — their solar setup actually pushes power back into the system."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • With a Ferarri when you stick it in reverse.
    • by ear1grey (697747) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:33AM (#17723158) Homepage
      Note however, that if your car is not actually a Ferrari, but an elaborately styled MG with Maranello accoutrements [imdb.com], then reversing does not work. Also, if you discover this and get angry widway through the exercise, under no circumstances should you kick the front fender.
      • Staying home pretending to be sick instead of going to school. I see it has really paid off and now you read /. instead of doing something productive with life. Tho, not like I'm doing any better.

        Grump
      • The odometer only had 3 digits. Why didn't they just run it forward till it turned over?

        Surely I wasn't the only one who was bothered by this.
        • Digits (Score:4, Funny)

          by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:43AM (#17723278)
          Yeah, but the odometer displayed European miles, which are actually 0.002 lightyears each. Good luck getting even the second digit to turn over. *snort*
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:44AM (#17720984)
        One method that John doesn't cover is tapping into your neighbors connection to the grid. There is this really old couple that lives next to me. They appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that they get $500+ utility bills every month, yet they live in an 750 square foot house with no central heat and air. I've found that my energy bills have been cut dramatically, even though I have remodeled my garage so that there is a server room with AC running 24/7 for my 20 servers.

        Thanks god for social security.
        • by finiteSet (834891) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:03PM (#17727722)
          There is this really old couple that lives next to me. They appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that they get $500+ utility bills every month
          Yes, but think of all the money they have saved over the years by diverting their sewage into your water line.
  • What is the story? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:29AM (#17720674)
    Err, this has been mentioned countless times. I really fail to see how this story adds anything. Yes, you can put power back into the grid and get paid. This is not new, and this is hardly a little known fact.
    • Price issues (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mangu (126918) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:53AM (#17721892)
      you can put power back into the grid and get paid


      The problem is that you would be getting paid retail value for the power you are selling to the company. Looking from their point of view, you should actually have two meters, one to meter the power you buy from them at retail price, and another to meter the power you sell to them, at whatever price they buy power. Otherwise, if everyone started generating their own power part of the time, the power company would go bankrupt.

    • by tkdog (889567) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:01AM (#17722274)
      Indeed, Make magazine had an article in one of their first issues about this. Including how to make your own wind generator. There are a variety of ways to create and/or reduce the amount of power you use. Make magazine is worth a look anyhow - http://www.makezine.com/ [makezine.com].
      • by xtracto (837672) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:56AM (#17721908) Journal
        Me neither.

        In fact, when I read the title I thought the story was about some kind of hacking box. I do not remember what "color" is it but I do remember once reading some schematics for a box that modified the phase (or something similar) of the AC in your house when you plugged it and made your meter (only if it was analog of course) go backwards. The only thing I remember about the diagram is that it required a HUGE capacitor.

  • realities? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bcrowell (177657) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:37AM (#17720698) Homepage
    I live in Southern California, and one side of my roof faces south, so I should be a prime candidate for this. However, I have some concerns about actually doing it. For one thing, when we bought the house, 10 years ago, the sellers were just in the process of replacing the roof, and while they were at it, they removed the solar water heater for the pool. If you figure we have 15 years left on this roof, I have to wonder whether an expensive photovoltaic system will end up going the same way as the solar water heater. Another question in my mind is the uncertainties related to the craziness California has been seeing in electric rates, as well as uncertainties about when is the right time to buy photovoltaics, given that the technology is advancing rapidly. And then there are all the other things that might be easier and more practical than installing solar panels. I replaced a bunch of incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents last month. I've never been able to get power management to work properly on my Ubuntu box. One of the big electricity hogs in our house is the pool pump, and there's not much you can do about that; if you don't pump long enough on the pool every day, it turns green.
    • Re:realities? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by scoot80 (1017822) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:50AM (#17720748) Journal
      One big issue is: how long will they take to pay themselves off? They aren't cheap. All you have done is pre-paid your electricity for the next 5-10 years (however long they end up paying themselves off over), and that is only on the sunny days. Unless you have energy storage (maybe you can fill the roof with lead acid batteries...), on every bad day you'll be draining juice back from the electricty company, so the time its taking to pay itself off is just getting longer...

      In the end, I think the choice is whether you want to help make the world greener, or you just plain don't give a rats.. most people don't give a rats ass, and so solar panel prices will stay up. Maybe the goverment should make it mandatory that new buildings have solar panels installed (does that already exist)? Here in Aus, new buildings have to have solar powered heating and sunlights.. but then again, we live in an oven of a country..
      • by Mongoose (8480) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:25AM (#17720900) Homepage
        ...and that is only on the sunny days.


        Have you ever lived in Southern Califorina? If there is ever a could in the sky people run off the street to take shelter in the nearest building. Don't ask what happens in a freak rain shower! Drizzle of doom...
        • by JacksBrokenCode (921041) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @11:05AM (#17724256)

          Welcome to KCAL 9. We're sorry we had to cut away from this evening's high speed pursuit but we have received word that Ventura is experiencing scattered sprinkles. Johnny Mountain is down in the trenches, reporting from the eye of the storm. We'll hear from him after this break, if he's still alive!

      • Re:realities? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuel@bc g r e en.com> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:48AM (#17721002) Homepage Journal
        There's no need to store energy if you have an agreement with the power company -- When you have extra power, they pay you for it. When you need extra power you pay them for it. You are effectively 'storing' your extra power in the power grid with near 100% effectiveness (better than batteries -- unless the power grid collapses).

        Although solar cells aren't cheap, the prices have come down, and efficiency has gone up over time. It's kinda like buying a computer... If you're waiting for the fastest computer to come out before you buy yours, chances are you're reading this on a TI57 programmable calculator.

        If you buy now, your savings start now. If you cover the cost of the cells in saved energy bills and rebates from the power company, then the fact that a 'better' system comes out later doesn't hurt you that much.... Once you have covered the original cost, you can always replace the system with a new one, and you really don't lose anything. (but you get the satisfaction of preventing the waste of a few barrels of increasingly precious oil, and slowing global warming by just a smidgen).

        Before you do something, ask yourself "what would happen if a million people did this"?

      • by patio11 (857072) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @04:47AM (#17721198)
        >>
        All you have done is pre-paid your electricity for the next 5-10 years
        >>

        60 months worth of your electric bill, call it an average of $100 a month, is $6,000. If you "pre-pay" that by rolling it into your home loan ("Build me a house and make sure it has a pool and solar power!"), it will end up costing you more (rough guesstimate is $7,300). If instead of buying photovoltaic cells you buy shares in your local electric company, you'll get about $120 to $240 a year in dividends (power companies often have a 2-4% yield), and your while your photovoltaic cells depreciate every year and require maintenance, your shares will probably appreciate and you'll never have to patch them up. (You'll have to pay the electric company for those 10 months of the year that dividends don't... then again, you get the security of knowing you'll never have to pay them extra just because its cloudy.) When you move in 15 years, rather than uninstalling or replacing them at your expense, you can just sell them and take your profits.

        >>
        In the end, I think the choice is whether you want to help make the world greener, or you just plain don't give a rats
        >>

        I don't give a rat's hindquarters for Green theology but don't mind conservation. Thats why I buy shares in companies which own nuclear power plants. Its cleaner than solar and has economies of scale. Yes, I said cleaner than scale: the energy cost from constructing solar panels keeps them net-energy-negative for about a decade (!) and when they die out after just over a decade (!) you have to dispose of them, and per megawatt hour generated you'll have to dispose of a heck of a lot more solar panels than radioactive waste. I don't invest in solar companies because at the moment they still haven't licked the whole "Making our products net energy producers" problem and until they do my only hope to profit from that investment would be hoping solar's massive government subsidies continue and expand. While I think that is certainly possible, I feel that if the current or a future administration wants to dump a couple billion into the solar industry, my nukes will get a similar largesse.

        Sidenote: If you have an aversion to nuclear power, I understand and accept that. I don't eat meat on Fridays in Lent and we can both agree that our separate faiths are mutually harmless. One piece of advice though. Spend your money on a decent job of insulating your house -- you'll require less kwh from the grid, and on a per-dollar basis you'll save more kwh spending on insulation (and installation) than you will on buying solar power.
            • Re:realities? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by bhiestand (157373) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:55AM (#17722244) Journal

              Try about 20
              Ours were guaranteed for 20, but expected to last 25-30. At the current rates, the total break even point is going to be about 8-10 years. We generally run the meter slowly backwards about 8 hours a day when it's sunny, and drain slightly in the evening and on cloudy days. The amazing thing is that even at night (during a full moon), and on cloudy days, we have seen decent juice coming off the system. Then again, that's Southern California, but it does take considerable strain off the grid during peak (air conditioning) hours, and we've found it will be highly cost effective.
    • Re:realities? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:54AM (#17720786) Homepage
      The reality is that on average, photovoltaics costs more to install and maintain than the power they produce is worth, thus on the average you're poorer *with* photovoltaics than without.

      This is however only true on average. If, for example, you live in an area where you get tax-breaks or subsidies for installing, then this can be enough to break even. In Germany, for example they have a "100.000 roofs" program where you're guaranteed a price about 3 times market-price for the power you produce for the next 15 years. That is *more* than enough to make it profitable.

      Solar water-heaters on the other hand are beneficial. Especially if you live in an area with plenty of sun *and* have a large family that likes to frequently shower in the summer, it can be a huge win. There are substantial savings from installing them at the same time one installs roofing, so your best bet is probably going to be to install them at the same time your roofing needs replacement anyway, rather than separately.

      The *most* beneficial investment however is building/buying a well-insulated house with balanced ventilation. This saves power in summer for AC, and in winther for heating. And a well-insulated house doesn't have higher maintenance-costs than a poorly insulated one.

      • Re:realities? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TapeCutter (624760) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:25AM (#17720898) Journal
        "The *most* beneficial investment however is building/buying a well-insulated house with balanced ventilation. This saves power in summer for AC, and in winther for heating. And a well-insulated house doesn't have higher maintenance-costs than a poorly insulated one."

        From my own experience, I paid to get insulation pumped into the roof a couple of years after I moved into my first house in the early 90's, no tax breaks or subsidies at that time so I paid the full price. It cut my heating bill in half (well, almost) and it paid for itself in less than 2yrs. Not sure about this, but I think it is compulsory for new buildings to be insulated here in Australia, they all seem have it built in.
    • Re:realities? (Score:5, Informative)

      by edwardpickman (965122) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:33AM (#17720926)
      Do your own research. Some of the information given you is bad. The life expectatncy of photovoltaics is 25 to 30 years, potentially more. The general rule for payback is seven years. If you aren't prepared to pay in advance for that long I guess don't do it but you will get 20 to 25 years of free power so you do the numbers. I'm not sure if California still has the tax credit but they were offering 50% of the cost of the photo volatiacs. Either way it's a good value. The bigger consideration to me is whether to go silcone or flexsible. Silicone cells are more efficent in bright sun but the flexsible cell are more durable and work better in poor light. The downside with silicone cells is if one breaks the panel goes down. The cells are very fragile. Flexsible cells can actually be punctured and still work, I've seen film of them being applied with staple guns. Even so silicone may be the better bet in Southern California due to all the sunshine. In the northern states I'd definately go flexsible Ultimately the descision maker should be how long are you going to keep the house? If you are going to move in five years I'd hesitate. If you plan to be there ten to twenty years go for it. Even if you do sell the house in twenty years the panels will have five to ten years life in them and add considerably to the value of the house. Power costs won't drop in the next twenty years. They have to go up during that time. Fusion ain't gonna happen in the next fifty years. Everyone admits that. Other than large scale coal there's no cheap replacement for current electric sources and even hydroelectric is threatened due water availibility and threats to fish stocks. Nuclear will take many years to get on line and there's still too many problems to make it a major source of power. A government study concluded localized solar was the best solution to Californias energy problems but that doesn't make money for the power companies so little was done to make it happen.
    • I don't know about your wind levels, but have you considered using a windmill to drive the pool pump? This is far simpler and more efficient than using anything to generate electricity and then using electricity to drive a motor, and inherently more reliable. You do need a positive displacement pump so it will work at any wind speed enough to turn the vanes.

      This is far from an impracticable technology. In the days of wooden ships, the Dutch used to buy English ships that had become waterlogged (yes, they do

  • yeah, but (Score:3, Funny)

    by macadamia_harold (947445) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:39AM (#17720712) Homepage
    Forty states have laws allowing individuals to do this, and many of them offer subsidies and tax breaks for people who do.

    Tell that to the boy scout who tried to build a reactor [amazon.com] in his backyard.
  • Non conventional (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheCybernator (996224) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:47AM (#17720734) Homepage
    When talking abt non-conventional sources of energy, solar power technology is yet become economic. I would rather install a wind mill on my roof instead a solar plates.

    while back here in third world countries we use other non-conventional ways to save on energy bills like
    Bribe the Electricity Engineer or
    Tap electricity directly from pole without any meter
  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:50AM (#17720752) Journal
    This is more widespread than you realize. Aussies have been doing it for a couple of years now. Just the thing for a desert country where it seldom rains:

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Where-the-icy- cold-beer-is-on-the-house/2004/12/06/1102182229401 .html [smh.com.au]
  • It really does work. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Calibax (151875) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:51AM (#17720754)
    Back in 2003 I decided the time was right to go green. At the time I was paying about $2900 a year for 15,500 KwH, and I figured I could make the money back in a reasonable number of years. After many discussions with local solar installers I picked one and in December 2003 I had 48 panels, each 60 inches by 30 inches, installed on my roof and three inverters on the side of the house to convert the DC output to standard household AC.

    The panels generate approximately 7.5kW AC (8.8kW DC). The total cost was $65,000 but with a grant from the State of California and State tax credits, the total cost was reduced to just over $31,000. Since then I have been paying only the minimum price for electricity service (around $5 a month) to cover the cost of the meter rental. As electricity rates have increased a bit (and no doubt will continue to increase) I calculate that I will recover my costs approximately 8 years after installation, and I will then start to save money. The life of the panels should be around 30 to 40 years

    It's worth remembering that you need to make certain your roof is good for the years the panels will be operating, so for some it will also mean installing a new roof first. That wasn't an issue for me as I have an ornamental metal tile roof that should last much longer than the panels.

    Essentially, I use the power utility as my batteries - during sunny days I generate much more electricity than I use and the excess goes into the grid, and then I use power from the grid on rainy winter days and during nighttime. I get credited for electricity sent to the grid, and yes, the meter really does run backwards.

    One neat trick is that I don't have to generate the equivalent of all the energy I use to break even. I'm on a utility company plan where the electricity I use during peak summer times (noon to 6pm) is very expensive - around three times normal rates - but off-peak usage is about 70% of normal rates. But I get credited at the rate in place at the time of day the electricity is generated. Because my installation generates the majority of the electricity during the peak times, I get credited for those KwH at the high rate and when I need to use electricity at night I pay the reduced rate. As an example of how effective this is, last year I generated 12,400 KwH and I also used 3,600 KwH from the utility company. But at the end of the year I had a credit balance of $380.

    There's one gotcha there - if you have a debit balance at the end of the year, you have to pay it. But if you have a credit balance, that gets lost. Ideally you want to generate just enough electricity so that your adjusted balance is zero, but that's pretty hard to judge. In any case, you want ample extra capacity just after installation as the panels reduce their efficiency by about 0.5% to 1.0% per year.
    • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:24AM (#17721322) Homepage Journal
      And here is the reason you pay so much in taxes, folks. Those grants come from somewhere. Whether or not you like green power, if you live near this guy or in this guy's state (or worse, if it was a federal grant), you're paying for it. Out of your pocket. Today. If it was a federal grant, that money is debt money -- it could take a generation to pay off his grant, federally.

      Government has no right to steal from me, or you, to pay for this guy's pipe dream. If he really wanted to do it, he should have done it with his own dollars, not robbing the tax payer of anything.

      Of course the average greenie socialist here would mod me down, but I speak the truth -- there is no such thing as a free lunch, and this guy will get one after only 8 years or so. On your back.
      • by retrosteve (77918) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @05:49AM (#17721460) Homepage Journal
        Well, I'll be the greenie socialist then.

        The reason taxes work when they do is that some things fall under the "common good". If we just asked everyone to pay only for services that benefit them personally, we'd have only private schools, few medicines, and likely no roads or traffic lights.

        Some things just only work if everyone is forced to pay a bit for them. But look at the benefits in this case. If the government takes some of your tax money to pay all the people who want to make their own power, everyone benefits through lower load on power stations, decreased demand for power (which lowers prices!), decreased pollution and demand for foreign oil.

        Obvious win-win.
        • by geminidomino (614729) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:42AM (#17721790) Homepage Journal
          Perhaps you're one of those that call taxes "stealing" and yet get anal when someone calls copyright infringment "stealing" ? It's a common thing.

          That might be because taxation actually removes our money from our own use, whereas duplicating digital data does nothing of the sort?

          You're right though, it's not stealing. "Taking money/possessions from a victim under threat of violence" Sounds more like armed robbery.
  • In the Netherlands, farmers who plant crops in greenhouses always have petroleum gases driven generators to warm the greenhouse in the winter. In summer, these generators feed back into the grid.
      • Re:Greenhouses too (Score:4, Informative)

        by Calinous (985536) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @04:10AM (#17721076)
        Because the total heat contained in the natural gas is used - some is generated as electricity, and the rest remains as residual heat in the greenhouses. 100% efficiency during winter
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Actually, this is very environmentally friendly. Burning liquid petroleum gas is very clean, and cheap for the farmer. The grid would be severely loaded if directly tapped into for the scale that the huge greenhouses have.

        Also, the generators are thoroughly insulated and because of this particular application (greenhouse), the excess warmth is directly used. This results in an extremely high energy/warmth ratio.
  • by Peter Cooper (660482) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:59AM (#17720800) Journal
    Back in the 'good old days' you could hack the meter and switch the wires around so that the meter would run backwards, even though you'd still be getting electricity. A one-time friend of the family did this in a shop he owned. He figured he'd switch it, operate for a week on, week off, so the bill would be low, but not too low. Unfortunately he forgot about this arrangement and the meter showed him to be $1000+ in 'credit' with the electricity board saying they were going to be visiting in a week or so. Panic ensued, and he bought a bunch of electric kettles and rigged them up 24/7 to suck juice from the grid to get back into the red.
  • by viking80 (697716) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:11AM (#17720860) Journal
    The consumer is offered two choices from the utility:
    A. peak rate at $0.40/kWh and off-peak at $0.20kWh
    or
    B. fixed rate at $0.35/kWh

    Now two neighbours sign up for the two different rates, and start their own little energy trading:

    Off peak, Neighbour A buys at $0.20 from utility and sells to neigbour B for $0.35. B resells to utility.

    During peak hours, Neighbour A buys from B at $0.35m and sells to utility for $0.40.

    With a 400A service, they can 800,000kWh a year and make a profit of $80k!

    Have fun
  • by hyrdra (260687) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:28AM (#17720912) Homepage Journal
    What is to prevent people from storing electricity (in batteries) during off peak hours and then selling it back during peak hours and generating a profit?
    • by Ihlosi (895663) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:52AM (#17721016)
      What is to prevent people from storing electricity (in batteries) during off peak hours and then selling it back during peak hours and generating a profit?



      The forces of nature. That is, physics and economics. Physics because it limits the efficiency of storing energy in batteries to impractical amounts, economics because batteries that size are frickin' expensive.

  • Catch Up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CmdrGravy (645153) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:40AM (#17720958) Homepage
    I'm surprised the US hasn't been doing this before, I think we've been able to do this for years in the UK and it's a pretty obvious development really.

    I'm not sure how well Solar Power works here though ;-)
  • by rhesuspieces00 (804354) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:41AM (#17720966) Homepage
    My dad had a friend a while back that did this, I think maybe in Oregon or Washington, but I don't recall. He had a large property with a decent sized stream running through it, and set up a water wheel. It generated A LOT more power than he used, so he was constantly pumping power back into the grid, which his electric company paid him for, at something like one fifth of what he would pay for the electricity if he was drawing it. The startup cost wasn't that high, as he was an electrician and set it most of it up himself, and was way more cost effective than solar panels at the time (I don't know if that is still true, this was 10 or 15 years ago). He wasn't just saving money, but actually turning a profit of a couple thousand dollars a year.

    I think some time later the regulations might have changed and the power company would no longer pay him, but at least he still had electricity that was essentially free.
  • by Panaqqa (927615) * on Tuesday January 23 2007, @07:10AM (#17721980) Homepage
    I've looked at the cost of photovoltaics, and the ROI, and my conclusion was that I'd rather go with a wind turbine. The same thing applies - in areas that allow it, your excess power runs your meter backwards and the power company pays you for it. A pretty good selection of small scale wind turbines can be seen here [bergey.com]. Of course, if you have 5 acres like I do, you can dream about these little darlings [gepower.com] that start at 1.5MW power generation and move up from there. No serious zoning issues if you are out in a rural area, and your ROI is as low as 3-4 years - assuming no unusually high maintenance costs and that the power company will pay you a decent rate per kWh not some pittance.
  • by CokeBear (16811) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:59AM (#17723440) Journal
    If a typical Nuclear power plant costs a billion dollars, what would happen if instead the money was spend on solar panels for individual homes, in the form of tax breaks and rebates for homeowners that put them up? Remember, economies of scale and distribution of the grid and all those other benefits too. Seems like a no-brainer to me...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You also need the right gear. It is expensive at the moment, but it wouldn't be if everyone was buying it.

      It's not a million miles away from the cheap inverters and UPSes you can buy. One important point is this - it must have an incoming mains supply to work. If there is a power cut, it will shut down, and most aren't smart enough to just disconnect from the grid and leave you on standby power. Why? Well, because it needs a phase reference for the incoming mains, and if the power goes down it has no w
      • Imagine if your inverter is pushing out the full -120v when the incoming mains comes back at +120...

        It would be possible to build an inverter that would disconnect the incoming mains supply in the event of a power failure, and "slip" the inverter until it's in phase before dropping it back in, but you'd need something like a 100A contactor for that to work.


        Actually, they drop it because grid-tie inverters are REQUIRED to disconnect from the grid when the grid goes down. This is to prevent backfeeding the disconnected island and frying a lineman who's trying to fix the downed wire for your block and thinks the lines are dead when YOU kept them live. (Those pole-pig transformers work just FINE in reverse, so a lineman might grab a line with 12,000 volts on it and a couple kilowatts to keep it that way while he's dancing and trying to breathe.)

        Now the EASY way to do this is just to monitor the frequency and voltage, and shut the inverter off when it goes out of spec (meaning the grid is probably dead and the line only looks hot because of the inverter backfeeding it).

        For a couple grand more, in the case of some good inverters that are designed for it (such as some of the Xantrex models), you can add a box with a relay, a phase-difference monitor, and a subsidiary "brain" board (or get an inverter with the function built in). (Actually the box in question usually also has the line monitoring circuit and combines with inverters that are otherwise stand-alone non-grid-tie.) That box will disconnect the inverter-and-keepalive-lodds from the line and let it keep going during an outage, then tell it to drift phase until it matches and hook it back up once the grid is back and has stabilized.
    • by Technician (215283) on Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:02AM (#17721536)
      Is it worth lobbying for a industrial AC/DC rectifier in each house at the meter.


      No. Do the math. From the post it looks like you are advocating a 12 volt system for the house. Right now a 20 amp breaker feeds a 12 AWG wire just fine and you can plug in a 1500 watt hair dryer in the bathroom which is maybe 40 feet from the meter. At full load, the voltage at the outlet may drop a couple volts so you are talking 12 amps current at 2 volts in the wire or 24 watts lost in the entire length of wire.

      Now the 12 volt version. From 120 volt to 12 volt at the same wattage (Volts * Amps for a resistive load) you will now need to draw 120 amps instead of 12 for the blow dryer for the same 1500 watts. If you were dumb enough to try using the same 12 AWG wire the 2 volt drop is now 20 volts. OOPS.. We seem to be short 8 volts in the negative direction to get 120 Amps to the bathroom outlet at zero volts. Lets see if it were possible the 20 volt drop in the wire at 120 amps would be 2400 watts of heat in the 40 feet of wire. Can you say HOT!. Maybe we need a larger wire size. Maybe a size big enough to handle the original voltage drop of a couple volts. Our original setup at 120 volts has less than 2% voltage drop. At 12 Volts we now have a little under 20% voltage drop. Hmm we need to go to even bigger wire to reduce the voltage drop to less than .2 volts in 40 feet.

      You do the math. Find a copper wire table and find out what AWG wire is required to handle 120 Amps with only .2 volts drop. Don't forget the current in a 40 foot length travels both ways on 2 conductors, so figure it for 80 feet.

      When you are done with the math you will understand why we use 120 volts and some countries use 240 volts. You may get electricuted in an accident, but you don't need welding cable for your hair dryer.

      My 1KW inverter in my car uses Welding cable for leads and the length is kept to under 3 feet total to keep the voltage drop within limits.