Can a Gaming PC run off of Solar Energy?

[blueflareeyes]

I was wondering if it was possible to run a gaming PC fully off of solar energy. Let's assume money is no object, but still include it as a factor here. For instance if I were to buy 5 of these: http://www.amazon.com/Renogy-Watts-Volts-Monocrystalline-Solar/dp/B009Z6CW7O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1465101168&sr=8-3&keywords=solar+panel

then would they be able to produce enough wattage to run my gaming PC? Or would I need to purchase more?

If you want some specs for a good idea of how much power I would need:

Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming
RAM: 8GB DDR3 HyperX Fury - Kingston
GPU: Gigabyte GTX 960 G1 Gaming
CPU: AMD FX 8350
CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro H105

Let me know what you guys think! I was just curious, and attempting to research this myself with little to no knowledge on electricity and solar panels got the best of me. So I turned to everyone here!

(p.s. The main goal is to lower the electric bill quite a bit, so even lessening the power consumption might be a good idea if full solar energy isn't enough)

Thanks for helping!

 

[DSzymborski]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years. And even that's assuming you can get all of your power from the solar panels, which you won't.

Solar panels just to run a gaming PC is more of a hobbyist thing than something that will affect your electric bill.

(Note that this is before any examination of practicality or reliability)

 

[blueflareeyes]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years.

Woops i'm kind of new here so i accidently clicked best answer when we've only just begun :/

I live in Massachusetts, USA

 

[DSzymborski]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years.

Woops i'm kind of new here so i accidently clicked best answer when we've only just begun :/

I live in Massachusetts, USA

I unselected the best answer.

MA has more expensive electricity than the US on average, so given the same aggressive assumption of 2.4 kWh/day, it would be more like four years to make up the cost of the solar panels rather than seven. And again, that's assuming you have no costs other than five solar panels and can get all of that 2.4 kWh from the solar panels, which you won't be able to.

The essential problem here is that you're trying to eke out significant savings from something which is dirt-cheap. You'll save far more money eating out one fewer night a month.

 

[blueflareeyes]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years.

Woops i'm kind of new here so i accidently clicked best answer when we've only just begun :/

I live in Massachusetts, USA

I unselected the best answer.

MA has more expensive electricity than the US on average, so given the same aggressive assumption of 2.4 kWh/day, it would be more like four years to make up the cost of the solar panels rather than seven. And again, that's assuming you have no costs other than five solar panels and can get all of that 2.4 kWh from the solar panels, which you won't be able to.

The essential problem here is that you're trying to eke out significant savings from something which is dirt-cheap. You'll save far more money eating out one fewer night a month.

ok. So clearly, solar panels can't produce enough, at least not these ones, which as you said are indeed dirt cheap. So either I would need to get the more expensive ones, or find another option to lower the electric bill, while still being free to game...

 

[DSzymborski]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years.

Woops i'm kind of new here so i accidently clicked best answer when we've only just begun :/

I live in Massachusetts, USA

I unselected the best answer.

MA has more expensive electricity than the US on average, so given the same aggressive assumption of 2.4 kWh/day, it would be more like four years to make up the cost of the solar panels rather than seven. And again, that's assuming you have no costs other than five solar panels and can get all of that 2.4 kWh from the solar panels, which you won't be able to.

The essential problem here is that you're trying to eke out significant savings from something which is dirt-cheap. You'll save far more money eating out one fewer night a month.

ok. So clearly, solar panels can't produce enough, at least not these ones, which as you said are indeed dirt cheap. So either I would need to get the more expensive ones, or find another option to lower the electric bill, while still being free to game...

No, what I mean is that electricity is dirt-cheap, so trying to find less expensive ways to generate the electricity has to have an amazing cost-benefit ratio. 2.4 kWh a day -- again, aggressive given that you'd have to be running your PC at full load eight hours a day -- is about $14 a month. If you're short on cash to the degree that cutting out $14 a month is significant, spending $700 in 2016 to save that $14 a month in 2025 doesn't strike me as the best idea for a cost-conscious consumer.

 

[blueflareeyes]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years.

Woops i'm kind of new here so i accidently clicked best answer when we've only just begun :/

I live in Massachusetts, USA

I unselected the best answer.

MA has more expensive electricity than the US on average, so given the same aggressive assumption of 2.4 kWh/day, it would be more like four years to make up the cost of the solar panels rather than seven. And again, that's assuming you have no costs other than five solar panels and can get all of that 2.4 kWh from the solar panels, which you won't be able to.

The essential problem here is that you're trying to eke out significant savings from something which is dirt-cheap. You'll save far more money eating out one fewer night a month.

ok. So clearly, solar panels can't produce enough, at least not these ones, which as you said are indeed dirt cheap. So either I would need to get the more expensive ones, or find another option to lower the electric bill, while still being free to game...

No, what I mean is that electricity is dirt-cheap, so trying to find less expensive ways to generate the electricity has to have an amazing cost-benefit ratio. 2.4 kWh a day -- again, aggressive given that you'd have to be running your PC at full load eight hours a day -- is about $14 a month. If you're short on cash to the degree that cutting out $14 a month is significant, spending $700 in 2016 to save that $14 a month in 2025 doesn't strike me as the best idea for a cost-conscious consumer.

OH I guess I read that wrong. Interesting to know. Thanks for thinking this through with me though! And I was over here thinking that my PC was the cause of a high electric bill. Good to know that it is actually pretty cheap to run.

 

[Solandri]

What country/state are you in? If your PC is using 2.4 kWh a day -- a particularly aggressive estimate -- at US average price per kWh, you'll start to break even on five of those solar panels after about 7 years. And even that's assuming you can get all of your power from the solar panels, which you won't.

100 Watts per panel is the peak generating capacity - what you'll get at noon on a sunny day with the panels aimed right at the sun (i.e. tilted at an angle equal to your latitude). The actual average power generation for solar panels (fixed, non-motorized) is the peak capacity multiplied by something called capacity factor.

Capacity factor takes into account night, weather, angle of the sun as it crosses the sky, dust buildup, downtime for maintenance, etc. For the continental U.S., it's about 0.145. For the desert southwest, it's about 0.185. For Massachusetts, it's closer to 0.11. So these 500 Watts of panels will only generate an average of (500 W)* (0.11) = 55 Watts over the course of a year.

If your gaming rig needs 500 Watts, then unless you plan to play only a few minutes at noon, you'll need some sort of battery to store that power. Most batteries have a charging efficiency around 75%, so you're going to lose 25% of the energy right off the bat. Then you lose another 25% when you pull the power out of the battery. There are further losses due to the DC to AC to DC conversion. Rather than break your heart with how horrible those efficiencies are, I'll assume you figure out some way to connect the battery's 12V DC directly to the PC and use a step-down transformer for the 5V DC. (This will probably decrease the discharge efficiency, since higher amperage results in lower efficiency. But let's pretend you have a big enough battery bank that it stays at 75%.)

So each day, the panels will send an average (0.5 kW)*(0.11)*(24 hours) = 1.32 kWh to the battery. The battery will store (1.32 kWh)*(.75) = 0.99 kWh of electricity, and will deliver (0.99)*(.75) = 0.74 kWh to your PC.

If your gaming computer uses 350 Watts of DC power, this will enough for you to game for 2.1 hours per day. You can use the computer more, but the panels can't give you more than that per day because that's how much energy they can collect each day from the sunlight they receive. To hit your target of 2.4 kWh/day, you'd need a little more than 16 of those panels.

Electricity in Massachusetts is about 19 cents/kWh. And (500 W AC)*(2.1 hours/day) = 1.05 kWh/day. So the panels will save you 20 cents per day in electricity.

At a price of $691.56 for the 5 panels, your payback time is 3458 days, or 9.5 years. (Ignoring lost opportunity cost, and additional expenses like cost of the battery, voltage regulation to hook all those panels together, voltage regulation for the DC-to-DC connection for the PC, maintenance, mounting, etc.) Payback time is the same for 16 panels since I calculated on a per kWh basis. It just has a much higher up-front cost.

 

[blueflareeyes]

Fascinating responses. I feel enlightened believe it or not! I knew there was more to solar panels than simple wattage output, but seeing the actual math, actually does help explain a bit more!

 

[IronJaeget]

Hello, I just thought of the same thing , googled it, made my way here and read the conversation.

Then I thought of a different approach; Why not putting the lights and water heater on solar instead?
I don't know who utility pricing is calculated there, but here the price rises as you reach the next phase of consumption. there is 3 phases of billing. you start on phase 1, the much cheaper, you reach a certain amout of consumption it takes you to phase 2 that coasts more, then If you reach the milestone to the 3rd phase your bills goes higher.
Basically, if you consume so low electricity, you pay with the lowest rate. you consume so much than average you pay with the highest rate .
So by putting lights and water heater , and maybe you can add air conditioning to the solar system too, you keep your rate in billing from the grid as lowest as you can. I will be thinking about this this way as it suits my conditions of billing and usage

 

[Solandri]

Then I thought of a different approach; Why not putting the lights and water heater on solar instead?

That's actually what a lot of companies and residences do. If you look at the ceiling of the newer warehouse stores, they'll use skylights instead of electric lights (only turning on the electric lights at night or if it's cloudy). Why go through the tedious process of converting sunlight into electricity, into chemical energy (batteries), to be turned back into electricity, to be converted back to light? Just use the sunlight as light directly. If you're home's roof is not conducive to a skylight, consider adding a light tube(s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_tube

Solar water heaters are one of the best ways to reduce your electric/gas bill. Water has an enormous specific heat (energy needed to raise a kg of it 1 degree) - so large that it's used as the primary coolant in everything from car engines to nuclear power plants. So heating water takes a large amount of energy. A solar heater is just a series of black/transparent tubes on your roof or backyard. You run the water through it and the sunlight heats it up. Since heat is the end-state of all inefficient energy conversion, the process is nearly 100% efficient at converting sunlight into heated water (only losses are heat lost to the air). It can't get the water piping hot for your morning shower, but it can substantially reduce the workload on your water heater. If your cold water is coming out the tap at 10C, and the solar water heater can get it to 30 C, and your water heater is set at 50 C, you've basically halved your water heating bill.

The key here is not to go wild thinking that "solar = good" therefore everything must be solar. Concentrate instead on doing things the most efficiently you can (avoid converting energy from one form to another as much as possible), and pick the lowest-hanging fruit first (install solar tubes for lighting and a solar water heater, before you resort to PV solar panels and batteries to power your gaming computer).

So by putting lights and water heater , and maybe you can add air conditioning to the solar system too, you keep your rate in billing from the grid as lowest as you can. I will be thinking about this this way as it suits my conditions of billing and usage

Air conditioners are heat pumps, and the efficiency of a heat pump depends on the temperature of the heat sink. The hotter the heat sink, the less efficient the air conditioner. (Or for a heat pump operating in reverse in winter, the colder the heat sink, the less efficient the heat pump at heating your home.)

Most ACs and heat pumps use the air as a heat sink. If your house has a lawn, you can bury water pipes underground and use the ground as a heat sink. The ground remains a remarkably consistent temperature throughout the year - about 10 to 12 C. This turns out to be a great temperature for an air conditioner's heat sink in summer (vs 30 to 40 C air), and a heat pump's heat sink in winter (vs -10 to 0 C air). It has a large up-front cost, and requires you to temporarily dig up your lawn. But when I priced out a variety of energy efficiency options for a hotel in a desert region, geothermal heat pumps had the quickest payback time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

The Romans used a similar system to provide cool air for their homes on hot days, long before air conditioners and electricity were invented.

http://www.i4at.org/surv/aircond.htm