They will still cost a couple grand, and also you must work with most utitlities to work on a grid-intertie system (where the solar panel sends it's power to the grid, and you get credited for, or more accurately, you get billed that much less), or invest in batteries and related equipment.

IMO, people should better spend their money to reduce their consuption first, before they go and invest in a solar panel system.

this is an excellent idea, how to actually bring it about is a whole nother issue. I am amazed at the negative input on some of these ideas. The beauty of this idea is to have the DIY (regular person)become knowledgable and adept at generating individual energy. The fact that a system would cost some thousands of dollars is not a negative, people spend thousands on their kitchen sinks. Also, mass consumption would bring the price down and the utility companies would "learn" to interface with the millions of individual systems.

great idea. I'd like to start with a simple solar-panel-in-window-to-floor-lamp to serve as the light most of us keep on at night even if no one around...

Starting out small is a good idea. When we built our new house seven years ago, we did everything we could to reduce energy consumption in our "all electric" home. Since that time, we converted most of the lights (except dimmer controlled ones) to compact flourescents. Our water heater is fed through the heat pump and we actually turn off the heater from time to time. Thick insulation, efficient lighting, double paned windows, and excellent appliances have contributed to a monthly bill around $140. For a 3100 sqr. ft. (airconditioned space) house, that's about 1/3 less than the neighbors. As for getting parts to try it yourself, just take a look at a company like Sunelco. Do a web search...and I read Home Depot may be carrying some items by the end of this year. Now the government is pushing for "1,000,000 Solar Roofs" over the next 20 years. Now I'm looking at one of the new "silent" wind turbines....

It seems that by keeping the local power generator small, it is more likely that it can be kept separate from the "grid", thereby avoiding the bureacratic headaches. Would there be separate wiring for certain appliances, or some sort of switch to disconnect the appliance from the grid and connect it to the local power source, when the source was sufficient?

It will be good to lower the barriers of entry into distributed generation electricity such as small scale solar and wind power. Distributed generation also saves the energy lost in transmission to the final user, which can be as much as 30% of the power plant's total output. Besides the efficiency issue, centralized systems are also more vulnerable to widespread blackout.

People are already going off the grid in Arizona and California, although it might not be as practical for someone with fewer sunny days.

Most of the posts here miss the point: attaching solar panels to the existing power grid (where there are huge economies of scales and low costs) is not very cost effective today. The best current use of solar panels is when you CANNOT easily get connected to a big power source (camping, off the grid, outdoor lighting etc. Also the cost savings from not using labor and digging costs of running wires (e.g., parking lots, backyard lights) far outweighs the capital costs of the solar which is why you are seeing so many new solar panels on the side of the road where they are not connected to the current electric grid.

While solar energy, specifically photovoltaics, is well suited for remote, off-grid applications, you their economic viability for on-grid applications, particularly when distributed power, is easily underestimated. While it is true that solar photovoltaics are probably the most expensive of the clean energy sources, even photovoltaics attached to the grid can be a good investment. For the amount of risk inherent in a solar energy project, which is very little, I would want an annual return on investment of around 5%, corresponding to a pay back period of 20 years. This is already not unrealistic if electricity is sold at the retail (net metering) price. As for the cents per kWh costs often used to compare various methods of generating electricity, they are based on various assumptions that are rarely stated and are not useful in determining the economic viability of solar power or any other form of energy.

I wouldn't focus too much on photo-voltaic cells. They're neat toys, but not a practical solution for most problems.

Solar energy is more effective as a heat source -- effective heating can come from good windows or roof-top fluid heating systems. I don't know the details of how the latter work, but essentialy they put a "solar collector" on the roof, where fluid is circulated through it during the day to heat it up, the hot fluid is then stored in an insulated container in the basement, until it is needed to heat the building at night.

This is a good idea to let people get a taste of things to come. But, last I checked, solar cells have a "mean lifetime". The cost of solar cells over their limited lifetime is still a high fraction of the money you would save on electrical power used.
The main costs of utilities are heating and cooling.
There are two ways of using solar energy where you will actually realize a savings. Put a black pipe type solar collector wherever it will fit. During the summer months, use a low-power circulating pump to feed the outlet of the solar collector to the inlet of your hotwater heater (and with a T, from the outlet of the hotwater heater back to the solar collector. Have a thermostat shut the pump off when the effluent of the solar collector is cooler than the temperature in the tank. Then during the winter time, divert the flow to include a heat exchanger on the supply side of your furnace (you can use a heat exchanger for an air conditioner), when the house needs heat, the dual element thermostat in series with the temperature sensor on the solar panel effluent turns on the furnace fan and circulation pump to provide heat during the daytime. If the second element of the thermostat kicks in, the circulation pump is shut off and your normal heating system takes over.
Eventually, the minerals in your water supply will plug up the system and make it less efficient. But if the results provide you with lower utility bills, then you can think about installing a closed system which will result in long term lower maintenance.

If you live somewhere that it freezes overnight during winter months, than you will need the closed system so you can use antifreeze to keep the circulating water from freezing. For a first effort then, I would suggest forgetting about the hot water heater and just using the augmented heat for the winter months.

To be worthwhile, solar cells have to be rather large to capture enough energy. This generally makes them expensive. However, this may change soon. New low cost thin film photo-voltaic cells have been developed that are suitable for mass-production. In the coming years, these may make your idea quite popular.

When I think "small scale solar", I see one of those windshield shades used to keep your seats cool in the sun), with a wire coming out of it and plugged into the i-pod it's charging. Maybe it could charge a floor-mounted battery that would later charge your cel phone?

But can we make cheap enough solar cells? Because it's all about the cost... No one is going to pay $500 for a cell phone charger even if it's clean and free energy.

There are many comments that say LOADS about our mentality about conservation: Specifically, in order to be worthwhile, they must "economically sound"?!<restraint>It really angers me when I read things such as 'the benefit doesn't outweigh the labor cost of digging tranches and burying wire.' I understand that's a very 'corporate view' and I hear it from many people, all the time.

I think we should get out of that trap and think there's gonna be a COST from SOMEWHERE, no matter what.

I don't mind busting my a$$ for 80 hours on something that might save me a $10 a year. So, we're driven to INACTION by stating that it isn't 'the best idea' to do this or to do that...

While taking Wilderness First Responder course, I was taught in a team scenario, with a patient's life "on the line"....

"All we need is a GOOD idea - it doesn't have to be the best. Take the GOOD idea and ACT."

I hope that we take all of our GOOD ideas and DO SOMETHING, because if we wait for the BEST idea, we stand around arguing and the patient dies!

Cheers!

Victor Michael