25 Responses

1. steve thomas is soooooo annoying, not spefically this vid……. but jesus, i cant watch anything hes on anymore

2. excellent video…net-zero is rare. I converted my regular home to net-zero and made a video showing the changes I made. It’s called, “Preparing for peak oil”…

3. Now it’s very easy to build own solar panels…

4. Very impressive and seems like the persons know what they are doing with this home.

5. Get rid of the GEICO commercial! Enough already!

6. SOLAR POWER + ELECTRIC CARS = FREEDOM !

7. Great video.

8. Be smart – don’t pay any more electricity bills. more info: solar.xfollow.me (Copy to your browser’s address bar)

9. learn how to build cheap solar panels from my channel

10. I know what the point was that was being demonstrated.. But basic electrical laws state P=EI (Power = Volts x Amps) all that was shown was Voltage NOT POWER.. It could have show 1000V BUT with no current then POWER out would be ZERO.. A volt meter measures VOLTS not Watts.. And working with the gear.. you can get a dead panel and will show you 25 to 30 V but is not capable of delivering 1 single milliAmp.

11. i think the point was to prove that even a with a damaged panel the array can still produce and transmit power… if its producing volts then it can transmit energy from other panels in the array depending on if the are parallel or series…

12. Be smart – don’t pay any more electricity bills. more info: solar.xfollow.me (Copy to your browser’s address bar)

13. The test on the panel.. Not very scientific.. As a matter of fact VERY MISLEADING..Voltage is not POWER..
    Just measuring the Voltage output means nothing.. Place an electrical load on the panel.. then measure the POWER not just the voltage..

    You have sceptics watching.. and little slips like this is not helping

14. exactly
    im in an enviromental class and one of our projects is to create our own sustainable community
    and after research
    redoing a whole grid with sustainable energy instead of having every house “off the grid”
    my friends dad is in the army corp of enegeneers and works on developing nuculear energey and it is 100% safe
    and the biproducts can now be mixed with cement with out leaking radiation and be used to build houses
    ive seen a house made out of it

15. in your case its cannot not can not

16. In the right context both form cannot and can not are correct usage

17. why did you spell cannot can not? i’m seeing this trend in recent years and wondering why.

18. Yeah, but were comparing apples and oranges. Even with an increase in transmission efficiency and a drastic efficiency of home appliances, peak power demand here in the U.S. blows away peak power demand in Australia. I work in the power industry here, albeit with a bias to nuclear. However with no question we can not meet peak demand in this country unless we dedicate a large portion of our entire GNP over decades to building green power where nuc could do it now without a portion of our GNP.

19. not entirely true. I worked for a utility company who had to make just these kinds of moves. We use gas fired plants here (Australia) specifically to cope with the peak demand (used only 2or3 day a year, but without we get rolling blackouts). As for Renewable Energy overall. there’s a chart on Wikipedia (Renewable Energy, click on costs) that suggests on the lower end renewable has the potential to be cheaper. I myself use 100% renewable energy at a cost of about 10% extra on my power bill.

20. The question begs, why build two power systems to produce energy while instead at less than half the cost you can make one power technology that produces all the power. Nuclear and unfortunately coal can do this, solar, wind and biofuels combined can not.

21. Your probably right but although the ecology makes sense, the economics of it don’t or at least I should say I don’t believe they do. Nuclear, coal and hydroelectric are the only power sources now that can generate power whenever you need it. However they are to expensive to only supply power in the down times, no one could afford to pay the power if it is produced on that scale. However it is probably better to make nuc. the base power and solar fills in the gaps. But the question is (next)

22. Ah here’s where you’re missing it. He’s bidirectional on the grid, reliability isn’t the issue. as long as he generates more than he absorbs in the long run it’s good. Battery banks in the system could be used to smooth out the bumps. You’ll may still need nuclear (or geothermal if you can find it) to make up the difference for some in the grid. A distributive system of “zero” emissions homes should in principle work plenty reliable. I just think this particular design is inappropriate here.

23. Agreed and even wind power has peak generation times of the day and season. For now I would rather rely on nuclear and unfortunately coal, that exists when I need it not when the sun tells me I can have it.

24. I have suspicions that the time of day in which you can cook and take showers as well as the length of the showers is affected by this. However it did generate more power than I would have thought. But I wont back away from the claim that only people willing to make major power sacrifices would be willing to live in it.

25. BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO