I have always had a mind towards energy independence, or just general concepts of independence. I would rather do something myself if I have the time learn and it isn’t absurdly inexpensive to just pay for something. Things around energy have been highly politicized. It also seems that as part of this politicization that people of political persuasions that are also heavily independently minded have internalized things against their character, like being dedicated to continued use of fossil fuels. I don’t care about your political persuasion and if you want to try and attribute a political ideology based on my bent towards energy independence: #1 You’re almost assuredly wrong, and 2# I don’t care.
So here are some thoughts:
Electricity the most versatile form of energy
We can use essentially any energy source and turn it into electricity. Heat -> electricity is certainly possible, but not often practical until high temperatures. The Peltier effective is somewhat like the idea of photovoltaic, in that it uses a solid-state apparatus to take the difference in temperature on one side versus the other to create a current of electrons. This process is inefficient. We can also concentrate heat and then use it to produce steam that can drive an external combustion system, like a standard steam engine or a sterling engine.
It’s time for folks to stop feeling like electricity is somehow going to destroy their identities. We can burn fuels (fossil fuels or waste products) and generate electricity. We can use nuclear energy to produce steam and generate electricity. We can use various forms of hydroelectric generation. We can use wind or solar. Everything we have in terms of energy resources can be use to generate electricity.
This simple fact means that we can standardize many of our applications of tooling to use electricity. Electric vehicles, water heaters, HVAC, cooking surfaces, etc. If they’re all driven by electricity, we can then use our resources to make electricity. Further, this process alone would make the entire process of consuming some resource and turning it into work into a more efficient process. An internal combustion engine is full of compromises that are necessary for it to be packaged into some form that can also carry the engine around with it. ICE engines are horribly inefficient in this form. Simply burning gasoline in a stationary ICE engine is more efficient because that engine isn’t carrying itself around and the compromises can be eliminated to in order to make it more efficient.
The grid is fine
When I am saying “the grid,” I am talking about the series of conductive wires and transformers that deliver electricity to points of use. The grid itself is fine and has the carrying capacity to move everything to electricity. Congressman Thomas Massey who claims to be the “greenest” congressman and drives a Tesla says that we cannot handle it. Point blank: he is absolutely wrong and he is defaulting to a political ideology that should have independence from this idea, but since his party has adopted a positive that is the opposite of its opposition (how tautological, as it would be), he has to support the party line despite being “green”.
Whether your intent is to be green or to be independent, this should not create anxiety in you. I can tell you that I am certainly not of the political persuasion or with the party opposing Massey’s (nor am I with Massey’s political persuasion or party).
I reviewed my electric bill evaluating if it would make sense to switch to a “time of use” plan. These are plans that establish different cost structures based on the time of use. During high demand times, prices increase (3x for me), and normal times get a discount (20%), while off-peak times get a significant discount (50%). So, the first step was just to see when I use electricity. To my surprise, 90% of all of my electrical usage for the entire year happened during peak times. This shouldn’t be of any surprise since that is why the peak exists. This is even more dramatic when you uncover how many hours of the year are peak. For me, there are two seasons that even have peak times, Summer and Winter. Spring and Fall have no peak time at all, so half of the year is already out. During the Summer, there are two peak times: 6-9AM and 6-9PM, Monday-Friday. During the Winter, there is one peak time: 6-9PM, Monday-Friday. So, we can cross out 2/7 of the remaining time.
6 30 5 / 7= 128.57
So, just about 129 days per year have peak times. Half have 6 hours and half have 3. We can multiple by 3 and divide by two:
129 3 / 2 = 193.5
There are roughly 194 hours of peak time in the year out of 8760 hours in total in a year. So, I am using 90% of my electricity during just over 2% of the hours in the year! That is absolutely insane! So, based on those figures, I should not switch to a demand-based billing until I can dramatically shift the times.
I can make a huge dent in this by shifting all of the things that I use intermittently and have batteries to charging only during that super off-peak time, or at least never during peak hours. I have a ton of things that fit this description:
- Two electric vehicles
- And electric riding mower
- Electric gardening tools
After implementing this by controlling the charging times (super easy for the EVs as the charger and the EVs each offer scheduling… the other chargers require timers). I was able to shift my use during peak seasons to 50% during off peak times.
Smart appliances often times do (but not always) allow for scheduling. Of the three that matter, only two offer it, currently: the dishwasher and the clothes washer. The one that uses the most electricity doesn’t offer it: the clothes dryer. Other appliances can also be time shifted.
Optimizing appliances
First, if you’re going to replace an appliance, get the most efficient one that meets your needs. Next, be mindful of the nuances of the appliances.
I spend the past few years being an appliance repairman. I replaced the guts of my dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer. The models we bought were simply junk and the manufacturer (Samsung) would not honor their warranty. I previously had great experiences with their appliances (even previous models of the same appliances). Nevertheless, I am done with them entirely, even for the things that they still do well. We were in a bit of a crunch and needed to replace them and decided to do so during the annual sales times that make the most sense. I had long considered moving to the combined washer/dryer that uses a heat pump and only runs on 120VAC electricity; we would compensate for slower drying times by purchasing two of them. For whatever reason, we opted to get a stacked combo, instead. A year later, I am regretting it. The regret would be less if I could schedule the drying cycle. It wouldn’t be the best, but we could schedule a load of clothes to be washed during the normal day times that are not-peak and then move the clothes into the dryer to have a scheduled stop time of 5AM. This means the clothes wouldn’t linger too long and they would be fresh in the morning ending alongside the super off-peak time. Ideally, having two of the heat pump combo units would be great. First, they draw less current and are more efficient. Also, since they’re heat pumps, there is no exhaust and the heat is pulled from the nearby air which means when the heat is returned, it is essentially a net zero energy gain (a very negligible energy gain does happen due to the laws of physics). This means that the air conditioner isn’t working harder in the Summer to shunt the heat to the outdoors, thus saving even more energy. The downside is that the dryer also isn’t adding heat in the Winter (and I modified my exhaust to come inside during the Winter, something you can do with an electric dryer and venting to a bucket half-filled with water to capture the lint… and it also helps to humidify the air which is naturally dryer in the Winter).
In addition, there is the water heater. Water heaters essentially work like batteries storing heat in water for later use. One point of clarification, on-demand/tankless waters heaters rarely save energy consumption because with “endless” hot water, other habits have a tendency of changing. We now have heat pump water heaters that are available. We can schedule them to operate when electricity is cheaper (super off-peak), or free (if we have excess solar output) and save it for later. This can be aided by adding more insulation, as well. Heat pump water heaters are far more efficient and actually remove heat from the surrounding air, aiding cooling efforts in the Summer, again (with the same downside during the Winter). An added benefit if using geothermal heat pumps for HVAC (and leaving me scratching my head as to why there isn’t the same option for normal aired sourced heat pumps or air conditioners… yes, I know it is easier with geothermal, but it could still be accommodated with additional plumbing and valves with options for “winterization”); you can add a desuperheater to your geothermal system.
Big diversion: How heat pumps work (to explain the benefit of a desuperheater)
Heat pumps, which include refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners, work through manipulating the properties of gases as they change phase to liquid and reverse. These gases dramatically heat up (superheating) when compressed; and they return to nearly the original temperature when allowed to expand back to ambient pressures. That process alone doesn’t do much; in fact, if we just did that a lot, the temperature would slowly increase due to physics. However, if we want to shunt the heat from one location to another, we can push the superheated form to the place that we want to send the heat and run it through a series of coils that we cool to the ambient temperature of that environment using a fan to force air over the coils… or through conduction in the case of a geothermal heat pump into the ground. Let’s say it is 100F outside, the compressed gas will reach much hotter temperatures and then be cooled off to something approaching that 100F. Now, when the gas is allowed to expand to more ambient pressure, it “subcools” rather than returning to a similar temperature. This subcooled gas is then passed through a coil where air in the space that we want to remove heat from is passed to transfer its heat into the gas, starting the cycle all over again.
Well, if we have a need for heat in one space while we’re removing heat from another, wouldn’t it be great if we could take the heat that we’re removing and add it to the place we want it? This is what a desuperheater does. This works with a pump circulating water from the water heater to pass near the high-pressure side of a heat pump (where the superheated gas is) and transferring that heat into the water. This is great because we’re improving both the efficiency of our water heating but also our air conditioning. I really want to implement desuperheating with non-geothermal systems. The concern is that with geothermal, everything is either inside or underground. The water heater can be adjacent to the system and the desuperheater along with the plumbing are all inside. If we wanted to implement this with a air-sourced heat pump or air conditioner (they are the same thing, in this situation), we would have to send that water outside to be adjacent to the high pressure line just after the compressor and before the condenser coil. This is quite literally possible, it just means additional plumbing and would necessitate the ability to to winterize this part of the system. Even if we made it a closed loop using a water/glycol solution, it would still be a bad idea to leave the solution sitting in the plumbing outside if you live in a climate that has more dramatically cold Winters. This would be easy enough by having a tank to push the solution into the tank and evacuate the lines.
It seems complicated, but it isn’t that big of a deal, really. It is requires some plumbing, some valves, a tank, and a pump. The heat pump or air conditioner would not even be aware (meaning that there are no necessary controls needed). It would just operate in a more efficient manner cooling the superheated gases far more efficiently (somewhat like when people add misting systems to their air conditioners).
What next?
Well, everything that makes sense should just be optimized to consume less electricity and then to operate at the cheapest time, if possible. This means things like insulation should be added, air leaks should be sealed, and radiant heat barriers should be introduced.
After all of this is done, the electric bills should be dramatically lowered, perhaps by 25-33%, or so. There will still be some HVAC, lighting, and other energy consumption that occurs during peak times, particularly if you’re awake and at home… or working from home. If the peak usage could be eliminated, we would see another dramatic reduction in the electric bill.
This could be done by getting a whole home battery and charging it during super off-peak times. Some of the savings would be lost due to the inefficiency in inverters and the chemical processes of charging and discharging batteries. But, it should be a net benefit. This might be a combined savings of 50% off the electric bill, by this point. If you’ve switched to EVs by this point, that is a rather sizable savings, as it costs somewhere between 1/5-1/3 to charge an EV than to pay for fuel, depending on where you live, and if you use super off-peak times that are half-price of that, it would mean it costs me 1/10th of the fuel prices.
The last piece of the puzzle is to look at generating electricity to charge the batteries. Between the generating capacity and the size of the batteries, the decision could be to eliminate grid use or drastically reduce it. For most people, I think it makes sense to drastically reduce it unless you can charge your EV during the day (meaning it is at home to charge; if your commute isn’t significantly long, maybe you could charge it during the weekend, or in the evening if you have enough generating capacity… or if it isn’t solely solar). Charging a battery from a battery is possible, but it would require a much larger battery to support it and it would mean significantly increasing the cycles on those batteries, leading to shorter lifespans.
There are four likely ways to generate electricity, in descending order: solar, wind, some sort of gravity system (including hydropower), and collecting methane from decaying matter and using a propane fuel generator.
Solar is probably the easiest, but most costly; it can be cheaper if it is DIY and not grid-tied. I have some larger batteries and some solar that I use to run my home office from, but it is far from optimal because the panels are not installed in an ideal location… they’re not really installed at all… they’re just laying where I rest them to collect sun for a very limited set of hours. Wind can work in some locations and it doesn’t have to be a traditional wind turbine. There are some helical wind turbines that look really cool and do not have to be reoriented to face into the wind. Something for home could even be rather low in capacity as it could supplement solar. a 400W wind turbine could be quite awesome when paired with a rather modest 2-3kWh solar array. This combination should be enough to often times cover the peak times without storing to any battery at all, though having at least a small battery would allow for this to be 100% accommodated by charging during the rest of the available generating time and a modest amount of charging during super off-peak times if there is a period of rather low generation.
Gravity systems can also be used like a battery. You store potential energy by storing some mass of matter at a height where it will be pulled by gravity to a lower height. Topography helps… and so does running water (like streams). Systems could be created using motors to lift mass and using the same motor in reverse to generate electricity when the mass is allowed to lower. You could build it up high, or you could dig and put it below (which would probably be safer but take more effort to build). It would be rather interesting to experiment with a wench and some cinder blocks, if you have a high peaked roof and space in your garage, you could rig a pulley to up high in your rafters (with appropriate support) and use the wench to lift the cinder blocks as high as possible when you have excess electricity and then lower them and generate electricity. More height and/or more weight increase the potential energy. Many precautions would be necessary. Another option could be to use it as some exercise. Carry some mass up and store it (this could be water in jugs stored in a tank up high), and then only generate electricity by releasing the energy.
Using a propane generator is a nice option because some propane can be acquired for emergency use. Decaying matter will produce methane (the principal component of propane) and it could be stored in an air bladder. Propane is held at lower pressure than natural gas; if you get a natural gas generator, it can also be used, but the pressure regulator must be swapped out. If you have a septic tank (I don’t, nor do I really want one), you could rig it up to collect the gasses. But, composting waste rubbish… and maybe collecting up after pets… it could generate some. The idea here is that this is not your principal source of energy, though. You would collect it over a long time and only use it in an emergency or when you have reached capacity.
That’s really it
This is was just an exercise in thinking while writing and not an effort to refine the thoughts or produce a polished example of writing.
For me, having independence is a high priority. Folks that fight these things generally have a significant sense of independence, as well… so it is quite baffling to see the arguments against these things. In addition to independence, it also offers the ability to withstand power outages and save money. Any dollar I save is like earning two, at this point, so the more the better. Further, much of it becomes passive, which is even better.
My main issue is that I live in a neighborhood with an HOA that has a restriction on solar, which is why I don’t have an installed system. There are many reasons for this and any arguments placing the blame on me are minimal, at best. HOAs only really serve two legitimate purposes: #1 in multi-family homes where common structures need repair, and #2 when the neighborhood has common areas/services that need to be maintained and paid for. HOAs, definitively, do NOT protect property values. To the contrary, national numbers from historic home sales over decades have shown that homes in HOA neighborhoods have a depressed value by about 10%. This is a red herring argument supported by people that just love to have control over others which… I am going to make a judgement statement here, and I stand by it… it makes you an immoral and evil human being; grow up and be better narcissists, socio/psychopaths, and other demented folks. One last point, these folks will say that you have a choice to not live in a neighborhood with an HOA… in reality, there isn’t much choice. When you are in the market for a new place to live, you only have the option to buy what is available and you also have many other competing priorities that are likely greater, like proximity to places you need to be, school district, size and style of home. When those are taken into account, your options greatly diminish. If you’re pressed for time, you also can’t find some affordable land without an HOA to build. It is folly and it is a lie… living in an HOA neighborhood is much less of a choice than can be said. Further, it is stacked against you. New neighborhoods are often forced to have HOAs by municipalities and the lenders that developers use. Further, the developers like having HOAs so that they can control the neighborhood while they continue to build. HOAs should simply be neutered all together, but absolutely when it comes to energy independence.
Dustin Dortch 