Is Going Green Just Plain Ugly?

If one wants to make an omelette, a few eggs need to be broken....

The first time, ever on this site I got to disagree with you. Or do I got to go to a different phase 90 degrees out of synch, and 90 degrees out of geometric alignment?

I think I rather.

The real question to matter is NOT the windmill - or such pipifax (german, nonsense) - but the power density achieved, by animal life and then humanity over recorded human history and putative prehistory.

Mankind progressed thru manpower to atomic power many magnitudes of power concentrations. How many millions of horse power a single Apollo engine produced? But, my target is plain, terrestrial energy production. Still, energy concentration is the highlight, as it was over all histories, not total energy.

Explain further. Are you saying the world is overpopulated, therefore requiring too much energy?

What, how does this relate to the original post or even post #1. I just do ot see the relationship of drawing a distinction between energy density and total energy, and a local NIMBY issue versus local energy generation.

to day looking at energy saving it self is considered ugly while a project concepts are discussed by large number of Builders,Architects and interior architects who talk grate about green buildings and leed certification which is a pure marketing tool,who cares for energy and environment?any way Big money is more derear than energy and enviroment!

muralicr

Re: For those who find sustainable energy sources ugly, let me ask you this: aren't overhead powerlines and telecom cables also unsightly? And what about industrial smoke stacks, oil refineries, and coal-burning plants?

Good points!

Re: Okay, so I figure all we have to do is wait 300 years, and all these new wind turbines will then be considered "quaint", and tourists will come from across the seas to see them. Problem solved!

I like that--one change though--call it the 300 year plan, the result of long range planning (for a change) by our political leaders. Then the response can to complaints can always be: "that's part of the long range plan, in 300 years it will no longer be a problem". (Actually, probably much less than 100 years.)

Going OT--nah, maybe not--maybe in another post, later.

I'm not (entirely) facetious.

Hey; To all that think green is good...It's a wonderful color! Machines and devices to produce or save energy aren't green, unless one would paint them green. Get rid of the political BS and invent something that really works! If the energy produced by the device is sustainable and maintenance of the product doesn't gobble up the the profitability of the source over the oil or natural gas costs,you will have a winner. Global warming is farce and a theft of the public dollar. The East Anglia e-mails ,exposed by hackers , prove that the whole global warming thing was an attempt to put the worlds populace into energy slavery. Pay too much and line the wallets of the perpetrators. Think, don't just react...........Thanks

What?

Global Warming is happening! We have to deal with it and try to make the world a nicer place for our children!

My personal view is that we do need a diverse array of different electricity power generation to see us through but we should still try to make that generation as clean as possible.

I do include nuclear power in that range as it is a valuable power source.

Global warming is not a farce and has been proved time and time again that it is happening and has been proved by many different sources.

I agree with you AP#1. But you sure would make a better point of it, if you didn't post as Anonymous.

Actually, even if we knew who he was he still would not make any point since all he has done is post a declarative statement reflecting his opinion regarding a highly contentious generic term that can represent a speculative hypothesis. Plus it really doesn't help him to indicate anything has be proven, as that would instantly indicate there is not a scientific hypothesis from which to base a theory for anthropogenic global warming. plus there is the issue that current data available tends to indicate the planet may be returning towards the more common equilibrium condition like it was in prior to the asteroid impact 65 million years ago, or even prior to 1 million years ago. Though man could be accelerating this transition back to that more stable equilibrium.

Admittedly, the position of global warming being a farce is also just too broad and absolute. It is fairly obvious, though without the scientific level of certainty, that warming and cooling trends do occur and in some cases consistently across the entire planet. (of course the concept of warming and cooling trends means they are relative to something else.) The underlying causes of such trends, and the degree to which the causes influence those trends is speculative, and can not be proven by science. However, to simply identify an identifiable warming trend across the planet as a farce might be a bit too extreme.

As far a children go, well warmer climated appear to actually favor human beings, just look at the population densities of Brazil compared to Canada, or Nigeria compared to Sweden. Maybe the Yukon would be a little nicer place if it was 6 degrees warmer on average, more people could reside there, and more agriculture could produce food there.

the dude needs to see more coal mines and industrial sites....

If he lives in NJ he doesn't need to go to far to see eye sores.

Lets explore hydroelectric in the northeast? That is green and does not have the eyesore that powerlines have if you bury the wire. The entire river does not have to be dammed and aquatic life can go on salmon migration and all that! Lets put the thinking caps on. Wind and solar is effective in areas but ugly in others.

Where? It was already plain along the Delaware River the longest uninterrupted river in the county and was proved to be destructive to not only the environment but the economic well being of the area.

uninterrupted, does that mean without dams, weirs and flood control measures?

Correct.

My question is that all there is to uninterrupted? Because the Delaware River is not all that long. I ask because I am now curious to the fact that apparently in the US we may have interrupted every moderate to long river in the country. I realize that in California we have dammed every River, but I kind of would have figured that some of the rivers connecting to the Missouri or Mississippi would be uninterrupted.

Also, I am curious now about the harm a dam would cause. Obviously USACE had no problem building dams on pristine western rivers where there are a large number of migrating indigenous species of some marketable value, so it seems like fish could not be used as a excuse, and there is no shortage of white-tail deer. The Delaware River Valley has been substantially modified by europeans presence now for about 500 year. So I kind of wonder what they are protecting.

First ask yourself why dam are through out the west and mid west. The main reason water rights. Just look at the Colorado River for example. How many states and counties are fighting over its rights.

The Delaware though small come paired to the Mississippi and the Colorado rivers is several hundred miles long stretching from up state NY to the Delaware Bay by Delaware. (all three states are half the size of CA)

When ACOE was planning on damming the river the only purpose was from water control for maintaining flow for power plants down river. It would have destroyed close to 100 square miles of pristine old growth forest in each of NJ, NY, and PA. The disrupting of the Shad, American Eel, and Atlantic Sturgeon. The destruction of thousands of recreational jobs in the area. Another question would be who has the right to the water from it NY, NJ, or PA? Who would control the electric? What happens if it fails do we have another New Orleans only 100x worst with all the cities and towns along the river.

What modifications have been made since the first Europeans have been around in the Delaware Valley ( the area around Philly), and it's only been about 350 years.

Actually many of the dams are in theory primarily for flood control, with some added benefits for potential water storage, hydroelectric and/or recreation. This is afterall how they get their funding through USACE. The USBR and some local small county reservoirs are for storage for water rights holders, the dams on the Colorado River being a example of that, but even the storage dams support hydroelectric generation and recreation (sometimes in competition with storage).

This all sounds like a case of NIMBY. Compare to something liek the Sacramento River.

Pretty hard to be a NIMBY when all the land was bought and held by the USFS.

A lot of Federal, State, Local, and private organizations fought against it.

Groups like PADER (now DEP), PA Highway Service (PENNDOT), PA Game Commission, PA Fish and Boat Commission, US Forestry Service, US Fish and Wildlife Services, Federal Highway Administration, Pike County, Monroe County, East Stroudsburg University, PENN State, numerous camp grounds, hunting and fishing clubs, and the usually environmental groups got together and convinced them not to. But this was well before my time.

Instead they built reservoirs in NJ to help regulate the water levels of the river.

RCE

Have you gone for your QSD and QSP yet? We are preparing for two jobs in southern CA and they are saying our SWPPP need to be done by QSD and then the site inspected by a QSP. I'm in the process of preping for AZ's ECC cert. Then I'll be working on the QSD and QSP.

For Construcion SWPPP, no. It is a new State requirement from the State Water Resource Control Board. City engineers aren't required to have that certification since we don't preapre the SWPPPs, which is mostly what I do now. We generally have deferred the responsibility for development of construction SWPPPs on the contractors to maintain responsibility for conformance, so my division of the corporation isn't really motivated or interested in having engineers CASQA certified. (Plus there are quite a few of the older professional staff who seem to believe that a Civil Engineering license alone should be sufficient to satisfy any requirement.) We do however, develop other types of SWPPPs like industrial SWPPPs for landfills for instance.One of these days some marketer in the company will get in trouble over something related to the certification and then the whole corporatuion will need to be certified by the end of the month. This happens a lot in large engineering corporations, very reactionary management practices, rather than proactive.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that hydroelectric installations along the Delaware proved destructive to the environment and economic well being of the area?

If so, how many hydroelectric installations exist along the Delaware?

Uninterrupted means there are no structures to block the river. No dams, levees, etc.

The plan was to put a huge dam in back in the 60's. The ACOE bought homes and farmlands for over thirty miles along the Delaware River in both PA and NJ. Not only was it supposed to produce electricity but it was was to regulate the water source for Philly's and southern NJ's power plants. After they did some research and studies on the area and the eco-system there they found it it would cause more damage then help.

What about TV Antennas or satellite Dishes? Aren't they ugly?

in fact, most of what they bring in to your lounge room is pollution too!

But over the years people have grown accustom to them.

All green energy needs is a change of thinking

Dave

Looks like another NIMBY* objection.

* Not In My Back Yard

I always think it is quite an impressive sight to see a set of wind turbines slowly turning in the distance.

I drove across Germany on holiday recently and liked the look of all the wind turbines near to the Autobahn.

Ugly is just a matter of perception and Solar Panels if attached to a roof look almost identical to the roof tiles themselves.

Yes, I think they're beautiful as well and wouldn't mind them in my "backyard".

I spent a couple of weeks in Pirmasens, Germany near the French border, they had huge wind turbines on the top of the hills along the freeway.

The whole time I was there they didn't move, no wind. Still the concept is good.

Could it be that ugly is the buzz word to pull in sympathy for a complaint? We moved to the country to get our own space. We live in a wooded area where we cannot see our neighbors and very much like it that way. Here is the view from my porch during the first snow last year. We have over head power lines and a small satellite dish and an antenna tower. Other people go to the country to for the week end "get a way from it all". Now they are looking at a piece of modern tech and have the feeling that they cannot escape anymore as it is following them every where they go. I can relate to wanting to unplug from society for a while and get your sanity back. It may not be aesthetics as much as a state of mind. But then again I guess aesthetics IS a state of mind.

Lyrics from a country song a few years back pretty much sums it up. "Last night I came in and a two was a ten and at ten I woke up with a two. I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few".

I'll second that! GA. I've designed machines that produce the blue PV foil. The iridescence reminds me of parts of a peacock feather. I've certainly seen uglier things. As for the wind turbines... I'm a practicing Environmentalist (I work for Endangered Species in my spare time), but I find there is something stately and majestic about a wind turbine slowly turning in the breeze. Now I wouldn't put them up as pure ornamental decoration, if they had no practical use (although I can't count how many spinning lawn ornaments I've seen in my life... we clearly have a fascination with spinning objects), but IMHO there is no comparison if I had to choose between looking at a wind turbine, or looking at a smoke stack billowing a constant plume of particulates into the air.

There is no perfect answer. No Utopia. No black or white. Everything is the gray color of compromise. Or perhaps zebra stripes. Or the Yin/Yang. Some sacrifices have to be made in order to get other good things. Everyone has a plan on how to interpret that, but few are any better than the others. Or, as in the words of the famous British philosopher... "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime, well you just might find, you get what you need."

We just moved out to Scottsdale AZ. Our house has both types of solar panels (heating water and producing electic). We checked with APS (Arizonia's power company) for the average electric bill for the house a month. APS pays $110 a month on average. Then again its sunny 300+ days a year here. I would love to put in a wind mill power issues at all.

I agree it would be nice to have a pristine horizon in every direction. But then, we should have let the Native Americans remain the caretakers of the land if we wanted that. They certainly would have come closer to that than we have. Of course, we might be without iPads and iPhones. But since most science came out of Europe, maybe these kinds of toys would have just appeared there.

There are plenty of eye sores in modern life. Billboards and tall signs are just as much a blight on the skyline; maybe even more so. At least windmills aren't marketing something -- yet. And they aren't that much different from an oil pump that pumps day and night.

Hmm, now there is an idea, widmills that can also function as billboards. At what cycle rate would the blades have to turn and how much coverage would they need to create an optical illusion of a solid picture. Apparently the human eyes scan at a rate rate of about 60 per second, but it requires at least something like 3 of these imagings to form a image in the brain. You could paint them to this effect (obviously it would have to be a very simple design), or even better add LEDs embedded in the blades. So when the blade reach a specific speed the sign turns on and presents a images for passers-by, like a changeable sign. With the support of marketers you could definitely find a growing market for windmills. If the people want the sign could show more community conscious content or provide public awareness bulletins. I suspect the blades might have to be redesigned to accomodate using a larger portion of the travel area.

Interesting engineering idea, eh? That is why I went back and added -- yet. And I can see it indeed did pique someone's interest. I'll be watching for a preliminary analysis from you.

I think a more pleasing way to "advertise" (i.e., subsidize energy projects like this) might be the way airports disseminate info. "Tune to XXXX freq. on you AM radio for ..." So people driving by could tune in, hear some interesting info. and then an ad saying "sponsored by." Most companies seek Green PR these days. It hides a multitude of other sins. That way, the blades could be used for some more artful purpose or presentation.

Except the windmills would exist already and just not be used, this represents another means to get revenue from an existing product, with some relatively cheap modifications (so a bit more upfront capital to modify the blades). Radio ads are just a new operations cost that is incurred regularly, expensive also.

I've seen cell phone towers that have been camouflaged to look like a tree.

As I see it nothings been done to even make these devices fit the environment they are being placed in. Most are just white. I think if something was done so they didn't stand out so much the complaints would go away.

Paint mast brown and the blades green to look like trees.

Those near bodies of water blue so when viewed they blend into the water back ground.

What I don't see is any compromise. They fight in court, company wins in most cases and the lawyers get rich. Use the money their giving to all the lawyers to do the best to make them fit the environment so they don't stand out so much.

Hmm, camoflaging cell towers is probably a good idea. I am not sure that camoflaging wind mills would help lower incident of bird kills for things like Eagles, or whatever else would garner piblic support.

You're absolutely correct. Although there is currently no scientific evidence that I know of, that supports that claim, the perception will certainly exist. The problem of birds (and bats) being killed in large numbers by these spinning blades is one of those problems that somehow has managed to be swept under the rug. It's actually quite a substantial issue for seabirds, raptors, vultures, migrating geese and several species of bats. So, anything that potentially could make this problem worse, like camouflaging them, will not be of any help to the wind farm industry.

Where are you complaints about bird kills from buildings which number in the millions, and power lines, oh yes yesterday I hit a bird with my truck let's bane all forms of transportation.

Get real people.

"... let's bane all forms of transportation"... ?

Ridiculous sarcasm rarely makes an intelligent point.

But that aside, perhaps you should read all of my posts in this thread before you cop an attitude with me. Your issue with my post has already been addressed.

Boy someone most have pissed in your Wheaties this morning.

Sorry I meant blame not bane. I keep on forgetting about the Grammar Police on these web sites, and that not all of us out here can be as intelligent.

I was just pointing out. That many more birds and bats are killed yearly by buildings, vehicles, power-lines, cats, dogs, etc. then by wind mills that's all. Sorry for hurting your feelings I keep forgetting how fragile some egos are.

Just curious how can you tell if I "cop"ing and attitude. This is a web site. We aren't talking face to face using SKPE are we?

I've been in the mining and construction business for over 18 years. I've been certified by USFWS and several states in finding the habitat and the handling of numerous species. I also handle all the air, water, mining, storm-water, waste management, storage tank management, EMS, ISO 14001, and the list can go on. So I understand how destructive our industry and anything else that affects the environment is. I also worked through many MOU's with USFWS and ACOE to complete my job and to move our industry forward.

If you want my resume I'll be glade to send it to you.

OK now I'm COPing and attitude with you.

Actually, I thought you meant bane, as in "curse". Or possibly "ban". Either way, same general sentiment as what you meant. That wasn't my point. Don't know what grammar police you're talking about, on an international website like this. I was referring to your extremist sarcasm in suggesting that something be done to "all" transportation. That isn't a realistic suggestion. I guess the piss in my Wheaties was about someone having such a sharp criticism to my words, but offering no realistic alternative... only offering an absurd and mocking suggestion like "blaming" all transportation.

The rest of my point in suggesting you read the entire conversation was for you to understand that I haven't taken a side in this issue. I was only putting out some facts about endangered birds, like raptors and other soaring birds, that get killed by wind turbines. There aren't alot of condors and eagles that get killed by buildings and trucks. They tend to keep themselves in remote areas. Areas that you'd be more likely to find wind turbines.

Unfortunately, I believe we need wind turbines. Also unfortunately, I believe we need to not help wipe out more of these relatively rare types of birds that breed very slowly.

So you see... there's no need to treat my posts as if I'm some kind of radical save-the-birds-at-all-costs-even-if-it-means-taking-technology-to-the-stone-age type of tree hugger.

Some of us have to keep perspective of the whole picture, to counter-act the extremists on both ends that want their way and nothing else. So which one are you? To hell with the birds? Or to hell with the wind tubines? Or... could there possibly be a third opinion one could hold?

Grammar police refers to anyone who criticises another's spelling or grammar on any website then refers to their statement as unintelligent, because of said spelling mistake or error in grammar. Basically what you did, a pretty uncool thing on an international website.

What extreme sarcasm? I just point out the fact that other objects out there wipe out a lot more birds per year then wind mills; yet people seem to only focus on wind mills. Why not power lines, buildings, etc? All can be considered ugly or eye sores plus damaging to the environment.

Where did I "blame" all transportation? I listed several things other than cars. Not once did I mention or "blame" any transportation system. Maybe a re-read of my lines needs to be done, with a less sensitive approach. Drink a beer or two then read it over in an less aggressive mood.

What facts did you put out their besides the noise and turbulence theory that you stated? Most raptors aren't endangered including the eagles (bald and golden) they were removed last year, condors are in localized areas which shouldn't affect the wind industry as a whole. Concrete numbers showing kills by wind mills then comparing them to other structures, those would be facts and very interesting. What you stated was nothing but theory and your opinion, which is what the web site is for. You know a way for all of us to share our opinions and theories with out being attacked and being called an extremist for adding one's opinion.

As I said before I work in the mining and construction field. Both of which can be highly destructive to the environment if the proper precautions are not taken. Examples following NEPA regulations, staying out of (if possible) sensitive areas, rebuilding natural habitat, wildlife crossings etc. All sites I've worked on in the North-east and now in the South-west have see a marked improvement in species habitat. One of sites I worked on is used by several University to study water fowl, bald eagles, and osprey populations. Every site I worked on the water that is released from the site has improved the quality of the stream it was feeding into. I've seen increase populations of native species of deer, coyotes, grouse, several species of reptiles and amphibians, and many more. It's all how you EMS works.

Same thing similar can be done with windmills. Seasonal operations during non-migrational patterns, operations only during certain times of the day, etc.

I play the middle of the road game. My job is to allow my company to make a profit, make sure we are following all the rules and regulations (including the extreme ones), and improve the surrounding environment.

I don't care for NIMBYs, but on the same token I won't stand for blatant destruction of the environment either.

Again I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings because I added my two cents in.

Wow. You're really determined to continue to misunderstand everything I write.

Okay, whatever. Peace.

Hmm, Having some understanding of real project implications is important. Actually any new project that must meet the NEPA or State equivalence would run into this issue, and it is a valid consideration by actual engineers beforehand to try an address such environmental considerations rather than trying to fight it out in court and potentially losing at a cost of millions $. It is far easier to resolve local residents NIMBY issues that fight USF&W onver protection of endagnered species. Even if you get approvals for the project through the courts USF&W could come through at a later date and shut the project down once in is in operations due to some other findings about the birds.

With regards to transportation, if you are modifying a project or building a new project (not just O&M usually). Even for roads you could hit such roadblocks. Kit fox habitat frequently causes issue for roads, frog migrations in northern california have caused problems. If a road is bring new traffic or increasing existing traffic, you will need to mitigate for habitat and movement corridor impacts.

You can fight the federal government or fight a few local residents unhappy about the aesthetics. One is a matter of personal taste that tends to vary substantially amongst the people, the other is a matter of Federal Law and Biological Opinions/Findings. Plus those people who think they look bad normally would start having huge fits later if they found even one bird they prize locally dead under a windmill (and then discover all the information out there suggesting windmills killing birds), the locals will start a huge fight to shut the project down. All it takes is one dead bald eagle under a windmill to potentially kill an operational project, which is not good if you have the capital already invested. On the other hand if a few people complain they think something looks ugly after a EIR is approve, so be it they would have to pay a lawyer to sue on their behalf knowing they would likely lose (lots of money out of their pocket with low probability of gain).

Valid point.

Even though I'm an engineer having worked on mining projects, I'm also an active endangered species researcher. I've worked with kit fox and bald eagles, as a matter of fact. Oftentimes I'm out of sync with my fellow environmentalists, many of which have a very one-sided and extremist view. As I mentioned before, these types of issues do not have a black or white solution. However you want to spin it, or regardless of where your loyalties are... the "other side's" views are also valid and must be considered. Extremism, stubbornness and narrow mindedness with these types of things will lead to no solution at all.

Never been a problem with me. A couple of months working things over with the Feds is a lot easier than working with some NIMBY group dragging you through court for years. The Fed you can get agreements and special conditions set-up. NIMBY don't care about any of that they will do anything in there power even getting politicians involved.

Just curious what do Kit Fox and frogs have to do with wind mills bird kills?

I think you and RCE are both saying the same thing--you both find it easier to deal with the government rather than impromptu citizen NIMBY movements.

RCE is sometimes a little hard to read--he (I hope he's reading this) might do better with fewer words.

I think you may be thinking of a highly organized environmental activist group, which themselcves are not actually NIMBY groups because they come from other areas to fight any activities they perceive as adverse to the environment (e.g. Sierra Club). This would be relative to a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard Group) like the local people who complain during an EIR about things like a Dairy may smell, that construction may obstruct their view of the mountains or look hideous, that the quaint local appeal that attracts tourist may be damaged, or those locally who complain that they fear groundwater may be polluted.

Kit fox and Frogs are just examples of the impact federal agencies can have on a projects, many of which aren't of any real impact themselves, but the biologists will try to use to gain some regulatory authority over other projects they lack the authority to be involved in or where they seek to force exhorbitant costs for theoretical habitat that wasn't in existence prior on damage restoration projects.

Bird collision with turbine

Here is a video of a very sad but all too common occurance. Contact occurs about 2:00 minutes into video.

I watched that video and that was not a tower problem but a bird brain problem. That bird was circling the tower for ages. It would have probably done the same thing to a high office building. It's Darwinism at its finest, those who adapt survive, those that don't, well case in point.

And while you are bitching about towers killing birds, what about all the bird strikes on planes, buildings and cars. Do we get rid of all of them because some bird brain with a suicide complex Kamikazes into one?

No, actually the soaring types of birds do that because of the thermals and updrafts produced. They are drawn to the towers; unlike birds that are hit by planes, who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Same situation with bats... they are drawn to the sounds produced by the wind turbine.

And by the way... no reason to get personal and aggressive by saying I'm "bitching" about this situation. I'm simply drawing attention to the facts and what actually happens. Draw your own conclusions. As I said before, there is no best or perfect answer to these things. Both sides have valid issues.

But feel free to cut down on your coffee intake at any time.

Sorry I did not mean you personally. Just that some people will find fault with any new idea without suppling any better plans.

I hear ya. No problem. Thanx

Hmm, wouldn't that potentially violate NEPA permitting, if a bird brain problem happens to apply to some number of an endangered species. Afterall Darwinism is inconsistent with preservation of endangered species in such cases.

Ugly Wind Turbines in your neighborhood?

problem solved!

Okay. I'll admit it. That's funny

I can't call it pretty, but the utility of it is undeniable. And there is a certain beauty in efficiency and utility. Here's a 1kVA micro-hydro unity producing 24kVA/day. Enough for an average USA home. The water source is a spring 110 feet above the unit and less than 1/4 mile away. I'd love to see these as commonplace where conditions allow. I just finished a site upgrade and generator upgrade on a unit which had been running continuously for the past 10 years. The new unit is getting 3 amps more than the previous generator. 21A@48VDC

How do you arrive at 1 kVA equating to 24kVA/day?

1kVA/hour X 24 hours = 24kVA/day...

I think this might help explain the question. Consider 1kVA times a power factor is equivalent to a kW, not a kW-hr. Seems like the terms confuse power and energy, and what you are describing would be more like kVA-hr (which in a purely resistive circuit would be roughly equivalent to kW-hr). Also, there is the issue of power factor, kVA doesn't represent actual power delivery but rather an idealized optimum over-estimate of power. Is this a purely resistive circuit?

1 kW would probably meet demand for a household averaged during a day, but the issue is meeting demand during peak hours, generally about 6 pm when an oven and stove are running, all the lights, heating or cooling, tv, etc..

The unit was delivering 20.8 amps at 56 VDC or 1165 watts. The system is 48 VDC (nominal) with 8 x 410 amp/hour batteries providing power for 2 120/240 VAC series 5.5kw inverters. With the batteries 24 kw/day is enough for an average USA home.

again, I suspect you are confusing kW with kW-hr.

Plus it isn't what you use a day (unless you have capacity for long term storage), it is what you use during peak demand that you should be capable of supplying, or at least augmenting. At peak demand hours a household might use closer to 5 kW-hr for 1 hour whent he oven is operating, the stove, tv, computers, clocks, heater/ac, eletronic devices, lights are on. On the other hand at 3 am a household might use closer to 100 W-hr. So yes with probably something like 8 hours of storage capacity storage you would be able to supply a household typically, or you could feed back and forth into the power grid using it to augment peak demands and resupply the grid during low demands. It might be more prudent to have a higher capacity for storage for periods when you have more people over or weekends when your demands occur over a much longer duration and tend to be higher.

Something else to consider, if you supply 1 kVA, you will likely be getting less kW due to power conversion factor (many times something more along the lines of 0.8 kW, depending on the system, though an inverter to convert the power from DC to AC could mean a substantial drop in real power). So you are probably getting something more like 20 kW-hrs/day of real power.

Ok. First, I am not advertising online; only responding to the original thread equating green to ugly, which, in my opinion, is not true.

As for system design, it is absolutely not a one-size fits all scenario. This is just one system I have installed, my first, 10 years ago. The battery bank size is a default. I use L-16h batteries for my systems as they are the standard workhorse for off-grid power systems. Since they are 6 volt I need 8 of them for a 48 VDC system. The residence where this is set up is a power hog. It is a 5500 square foot home with 5 acres of meticulous landscaping requiring a lot of water pumping to maintain. The battery bank is minimal for their power consumption (3 days battery storage is the standard) but there is an 8kVA propane generator on standby if the system fails to keep up with demand. There is also 2 kVA of PV's to add additional electricity.

When I design systems they are setup for the particulars of the individual's needs. Where I live there are no cookie-cutter suburbs with 2.3 kids, etc, etc. The population is all over the board from this place at 5500 sq.ft. to 200 sq.ft. cabins up 4-wheel drive only roads. Obviously the requirements are different and I cater accordingly.