Fuel Cell Performance

> Your other suggestions simply don't make sense. The homeowner will
> use solar power for 9 months of the year, and then turn on a
> seperate wind turbine system for the 3 winter months?

No, they can use it year round, jsut that in a windy winter it is likely
to be producing more power than the PV.

> Now they've
> got even more capital invested in energy equipment, and with wind
> they're no better off than with solar vis a vis reliability.

Depends on how expensive the equipment is to install and amintainif
everyone did it -- a perennial disagreement between us, but I can point
to declining cost curves from histroical data that have no immediate end
in sight.

> This always gets me - turn to the gird when times get tough. Like
> the electricity will magically be there.
>
> For 9 months of the year the gird is ignored by these homeowners but
> then en masse they suckle from it in the dead of winter. Where will
> all the generating capacity magically come from? That capacity will
> have to be paid for by the users. If they don't pay regularly over
> the course of the year to amortize that equipment, then that
> amortization must be paid for entirely in the 4 Winter months. These
> homeonwers aren't going to be paying $0.12 kWh, they'll be paying
> $0.50 or more.
>
> Don't you remember the Niagara Mohawk analysis. Even if you cut your
> usage by one-half and rely on the grid for the remainder of your
> need, your utility bill will be reduced by 15, not 50%.

Your argument about the scalability of using the grid as it is now for
backup power if everyone does this I have conceeded; still, why use the
grid? Mostly self-sufficient homes can just have a 250 gallon propane
tank where 10-15% of their power is delivered once a year or so to let
them be more comfortable during the winter -- and I say comfort, not
essentials. That propane can first come from fossil fuels sources and
then from renewable technology -- either SSPS (yikes! :-) or ground
based solar/wind/hydro/tidal etc.

> Who is keen on spending $30,000-$100,000+ in order to reduce their
> bill by 15%?

More like spend $10,000-$20,000 for new construction to reduce their
power bill by 90% using the above approach (and assuming cheaper PV).
Granted this is a lot of cash, but if as a matter of national security
the US government just handed $87 billion a year to homeowners for such
conversions, then at 100 million or so households, we're only talking
about ten or so years for everyone to be paid to convert over, and
reduce the USs energy use and remove all dependency on external or
remote fuel sources.

--Paul Fernhout