A newbies DIY solar install

[ponytug]

At the levels PG&E was proposing for paying our "fair share", it would have been much more cost effective for us to pull the meter, add more solar, and generate our hydrogen during the summer to use during the winter. Kinda joking, but not really; pulling the meter would have been the way to go. As it is, we are net energy positive mid-February to mid-November, so it wouldn't be a much additional solar to be completely off grid.

I am all in favor of supporting the grid, but let's bill everyone the same connection fee, scaled by meter size. Then add power costs, plus all of the various depreciation and environmental fees on a per kWh basis, and be done. Having power at my supermarket benefits me as well as them, and I am prepared to pay something for a grid system that enables anyone who wants power to get it. At the same time, we invested a chunk of change installing solar, that the utility and other customers weren't and aren't paying for.

YMMV...

All the best,

Peter

 

[Carl_NH]

I agree paying for grid tie (and we do) as we generate 75% of the usage and have net metering grandfathered to the current rates so any over production gets credited at $.22/KWH - the current rate. But it takes a sizable upfront investment, which we did 7 years ago. Much like the power generation stations, the upfront investment is high, and ROI is over a long term 10-20 years so IMO we made the investment and should gain the benefits, after 7-10 years then it starts to generate a positive return.

But power generation is the second half, the first and more important in part is being energy efficient in the first place - insulation, minimize air infiltration etc. so the total energy needed to heat/cool is less. For new construction this is easy, for exiting buildings it's harder and more expensive, thus the ROI is longer. Then in areas where electricity is $.05-.08 per KWH due to hydro power etc. do you spend $1000 to save $100 a year is a non starter for most people.

 

[not2old]

I agree paying for grid tie (and we do) as we generate 75% of the usage and have net metering grandfathered to the current rates so any over production gets credited at $.22/KWH - the current rate. But it takes a sizable upfront investment, which we did 7 years ago. Much like the power generation stations, the upfront investment is high, and ROI is over a long term 10-20 years so IMO we made the investment and should gain the benefits, after 7-10 years then it starts to generate a positive return.

But power generation is the second half, the first and more important in part is being energy efficient in the first place - insulation, minimize air infiltration etc. so the total energy needed to heat/cool is less. For new construction this is easy, for exiting buildings it's harder and more expensive, thus the ROI is longer. Then in areas where electricity is $.05-.08 per KWH due to hydro power etc. do you spend $1000 to save $100 a year is a non starter for most people.

That's a 10% saving which is whole lot better than the 2%I'm getting on my condo rentals right now

 

[Carl_NH]

That's a 10% saving which is whole lot better than the 2%I'm getting on my condo rentals right now

My point is can or will the average consumer spend $10 or $20K to improve/insulate their property to save $1 to $2K per year? Some will, of course but for the majority will not as its easier to pay monthly - short term thinking.

As far as your condo's in BC if you bought/own condos there in the last 2-3 years, the valuations have appreciated in Vancouver region 50-150% unless you are very remote - which Scotch Creek is more of a vacation destination may be the anomaly.

 

[fishdrivel]

The electric vehicle maker, which combined with Solar City in 2016, argues that imposing fixed charges on solar customers impinges on their right to self-generate their own clean energy.

"It violates every tenant of regulatory fairness and is likely illegal under federal law," Tesla says. "The fixed charges cannot be avoided by adding a battery and would need to be paid regardless of whether the solar customer exports energy to the electric grid."

The company also warned that the "dramatic change" from current NEM policy will reduce customer adoption of clean energy in California at a time when more is needed to meet the state's climate goals and that reducing the grandfathering period short-changes customers who made an investment in solar under the previous policy.

 

[ning]

The electric vehicle maker, which combined with Solar City in 2016, argues that imposing fixed charges on solar customers impinges on their right to self-generate their own clean energy.

"It violates every tenant of regulatory fairness and is likely illegal under federal law," Tesla says. "The fixed charges cannot be avoided by adding a battery and would need to be paid regardless of whether the solar customer exports energy to the electric grid."

The company also warned that the "dramatic change" from current NEM policy will reduce customer adoption of clean energy in California at a time when more is needed to meet the state's climate goals and that reducing the grandfathering period short-changes customers who made an investment in solar under the previous policy.

Yes - if they're actually connected to the grid, they'll have to pay for that connection.

If you're not connected to the grid, there's no way to make you pay for a grid connection.

You're welcome to read the proposal itself - it's trivial to look it up online - and it's exactly what I'm saying here (I read it - "do your own research!" my guess if you've said this before).

Musk is obfuscating the grid connection here, unsurprisingly, because by using batteries and solar with net metering, you can get to net-zero pretty easily, and that's what's driving battery sales right now (no, it's not back-up power - batteries + solar are way too expensive compared to a backup generator that you only occasionally need).

Net zero still requires that grid connection, so he's yelling that even if you never export to the grid - which you definitely have to to get to net zero unless you have ridiculous amounts of battery or very low use - they're going to make you pay! which is true but won't actually happen.

If you have sufficient battery to be off-grid, you can drop your PG&E connection and avoid all charges.

You can't have your cake (grid as primary or backup) and eat it too (not pay for any of it).

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Yes - if they're actually connected to the grid, they'll have to pay for that connection.

If you're not connected to the grid, there's no way to make you pay for a grid connection.

You're welcome to read the proposal itself - it's trivial to look it up online - and it's exactly what I'm saying here (I read it - "do your own research!" my guess if you've said this before).

Musk is obfuscating the grid connection here, unsurprisingly, because by using batteries and solar with net metering, you can get to net-zero pretty easily, and that's what's driving battery sales right now (no, it's not back-up power - batteries + solar are way too expensive compared to a backup generator that you only occasionally need).

Net zero still requires that grid connection, so he's yelling that even if you never export to the grid - which you definitely have to to get to net zero unless you have ridiculous amounts of battery or very low use - they're going to make you pay! which is true but won't actually happen.

If you have sufficient battery to be off-grid, you can drop your PG&E connection and avoid all charges.

You can't have your cake (grid as primary or backup) and eat it too (not pay for any of it).

My local utility is fine with me to put in a solar system complete with storage batteries as long as I do NOT grid tie per my meeting with them. Elon Musk wants me to go with a Tesla solar system and do the grid tie thing so he can resell my surplus to the highest bidder.

I want my independence and to be able to gas up on sunshine at home at will!

 

[oosik]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

 

[beowulf]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

oosik, yeah, that is an issue - probably no solution to that. We are fortunate here that we get a good bit of sun even in the Winter. With the daily charts (available online with our system), we can clearly see that we get almost no production on a rainy or totally cloudy day. Fortunately, over a year's time the production exceeds what we use.

 

[orezok]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

Just the opposite here in the desert. Yesterday on my 7530W system I generated 51.6kW for the day with a peak output of 7.1kW about noon. That’s a 94% efficiency and my peak months are still to come in May and November.

My payback will be about 4 years. Absolutely works here.