another hiccup to going solar?

[orezok]

OK, where does the wind take it to then? Pluto?

I think Most of it ends upon the east coast. It apparently is affecting a lot of peoples brains. LOL

 

[bnold]

OK, where does the wind take it to then? Pluto?

Look up trade winds.

 

[bnold]

Apparently there are a lot of people in California that stopped paying the electric bill during covid and a law prevented the electric company from shutting off power. A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck too and that's if they even have a job. Sounds like it might be a solution to prevent a bigger crisis.

Got it, solution - steal from the haves and give it to the have nots, thought that is what i said?

 

[Hay Dude]

Look up trade winds.

OK so once the pollution goes into the trade winds, does it disappear? Or does it pollute other countries outside their borders?

Do the innocent citizens of China have a right to breathe clean air?

Or does shoving the coal to them make you feel better because Americans aren’t breathing polluted air?

If someone really wants to virtue signal-I mean really wants to know what they did helped the earth and coal was that bad, they wouldn’t sell it to anyone. Here or abroad.

 

[ponytug]

Depends on location and power company, I sell mine back for the exact rate I purchase for.

Therefore a battery system makes zero sense for me. Negative payback period.

For some more complex situations, stored power sold back during peak demand times can pencil out pretty nice with batteries.

For some situations, the sell back rate is a fraction of the purchase rate (which I think is BS)



$1.33/W installed here.

Even if you don't get credit for selling back to the utility, there may be an ROI if power costs differ during the day, e.g. we have a peak rate period from 4-9pm that is about 2x off peak. By using batteries, we move solar power generated during off peak rates to peak rate time periods, reducing the cost of power.

All the best, Peter

 

[ponytug]

I just read a news article where the power companies in California are requesting a change to the way customers are billed. They want it changed to a fixed rate based on income.

• Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills in Edison and PG&E territories and $24 a month in SDG&E territory.
• Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month in Edison territory, $34 a month in SDG&E territory and $30 a month in PG&E territory.
• Households earning from $69,000 – $180,000 would pay $51 a month in Edison and PG&E territories and $73 a month in SDG&E territory.
• Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory.

These fixed rates are very low, even for high income households and it seems investing in renewable energy is not even considered. What the hell?

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

 

[bnold]

Even if you don't get credit for selling back to the utility, there may be an ROI if power costs differ during the day, e.g. we have a peak rate period from 4-9pm that is about 2x off peak. By using batteries, we move solar power generated during off peak rates to peak rate time periods, reducing the cost of power.

All the best, Peter

No doubt, believe I referenced that earlier. That is really the only way that battery based systems pencil out.

They would not for me, mine is purely net generation at the same rate in vs out.

 

[bnold]

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

Utilities should not be reimbursing at total cost. Just generation cost, if this is the intent, then I agree with that part.

What does household income have to do with setting base rates though?

If they want to do something more fair, they could base the distribution cost on peak demand like many power companies do for commercial. That is a fair way to spread distribution costs.

 

[ponytug]

Utilities should not be reimbursing at total cost. Just generation cost, if this is the intent, then I agree with that part.

What does household income have to do with setting base rates though?

If they want to do something more fair, they could base the distribution cost on peak demand like many power companies do for commercial. That is a fair way to spread distribution costs.

I believe that Texas has some tariffs as you suggest that do offer real time pricing, along the lines that you suggest. As most people aren't very aware of the real-time costs of electricity, it caused some consumer in Texas to have monthly bills in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars during the freeze a few years ago. I don't know how you communicate the real time price to the average consumer effectively.

I guess, based on my back of the envelope calculation that even our utility realized rather regressive tax nature of charging everyone $200/meter/mo, a rather third rail item politically, especially because making electricity cheaper, but the fixed costs higher favors large consumers of power, like wealthy owners of large homes with AC, pools, multiple electric vehicles, and jacuzzis.

Just a guess...

All the best,

Peter

 

[TN8Man]

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

Yes, a proposal by some of the largest electric companies in California but it sounds like they are mandated by law to come up with a solution and apparently this is it.

After the ENRON scandal and being in California who knows what really behind this.

 

[CoolTech]

ROI timeframes will vary a lot I suppose based on where you live (how much sun), energy rates, how much you pay for the solar (DIY will save you a LOT), and what kind of grid connections terms may be available in your area. We are just completing a new home & shop. In the planning phase I oriented the 85 x 41' shop so that it faces predominately South to accommodate the panels. I'm in SoCal - so we have a lot of sun and, unfortunately, high usage costs. My goal - which I believe we will achieve, is to have $0 energy costs on an annualized basis. (Yes, realistically, I will have a minimum admin bill of ~$40/mo.) We have just completed the installation - all DIY and thanks a lot for the help of my 31 year old son.

We have 63 365-watt panels connected via Enphase IQ8+ microinverters. The total out-of-pocket expense for the panels, microinverters, wiring, and mounting system was ~$36,000 and we will get a Federal refund of 30% so the true cost will be ~$26,000. Our new home is all electric (no gas) - so electric (Hybrid) hot water heater, clothes dryer, heating, oven and cooktop. We got our NEM 2.0 (grid connection) application in before the April 14th cut-off which is a HUGE benefit... and which is no longer available in California. We'll get a 20-year grandfather to stay in the program.

In short, during the mild temperature but mostly sunny days in Jan, Feb, Mar, April, and May we will be storing credits with the Utility company. Then, in the hotter months of June-Sept when we are running the AC, we will withdraw from the accumulated credits.... and most likely achieve a $0 balance on an annualized (NEM) plan.

As for the ROI, our energy costs on our older but much smaller home nearby was approximately $5,400. No doubt, energy costs will increase in the coming years so payback will come in less than 5-years. But - one should note that with the withdrawal of the NEM plan for new applicants, the payback scenario is going to worsen considerably. First, one would most likely need to consider the cost of battery storage and even with that the most common scenario is to capture (charge) batteries during the day and then use that energy during the evening hours. There's nothing equivalent to a NEM plan where you can capitalize on energy credits you built months prior.

 

[ultrarunner]

Net Metering is changing here as it proved too much of an incentive.

Just received my annual True Up statement along with a $360 check.

This is after deducting minimum monthly charges, etc.

I expect next year to be a fraction under the reduced kW buy back.

Might be time to installed electric water heater to use more of what I generate... which tends to average about 10kW a day most of the year... not too shabby for circa 2007 160W panels.

 

[DKCDKC]

I haven't read all the pages of comments on this thread, but I haven't seen one factor in evaluating solar that I am considering. I am out in a very rural area and, at almost 80, may well need whole-house backup power for medical reasons in the next few years. A number of my relatives moved in that direction years ago. I have a geothermal heat pump and my electric bill is very modest for a 3,000 sq ft home, but I will need a sizable backup generator on the order of $15K to $25K I am told. With the various government subsidies, I can get solar panels for a reasonable amount and then spend $10K or more on batteries to gain the emergency generation I might need down the road. I know the actual economics for solar in a residential or small farm setting aren't great, but when you factor in possible use as backup generator, they look a lot better. I haven't decided on what I'm going to do... But I am studying it. BTW, I'm on a co-op and very rarely have outages - and have a small, portable generator and a few good battery power-stations to tide me over if/when I have an outage. And they're awfully handy for electric power out on the land when needed.

 

[orezok]

If you are worried about solar owners are being subsidized by non solar owners, then you should be outraged that the petrochemical industry received 20 BILLION in subsidies last year. All paid for by me and other tax payers. Then of course there is pharmaceutical, transportation and FARMING!

The solar amount is a drop in the bucket compared to these.

 

[ericm979]

I haven't read all the pages of comments on this thread, but I haven't seen one factor in evaluating solar that I am considering. I am out in a very rural area and, at almost 80, may well need whole-house backup power for medical reasons in the next few years. A number of my relatives moved in that direction years ago. I have a geothermal heat pump and my electric bill is very modest for a 3,000 sq ft home, but I will need a sizable backup generator on the order of $15K to $25K I am told. With the various government subsidies, I can get solar panels for a reasonable amount and then spend $10K or more on batteries to gain the emergency generation I might need down the road. I know the actual economics for solar in a residential or small farm setting aren't great, but when you factor in possible use as backup generator, they look a lot better. I haven't decided on what I'm going to do... But I am studying it. BTW, I'm on a co-op and very rarely have outages - and have a small, portable generator and a few good battery power-stations to tide me over if/when I have an outage. And they're awfully handy for electric power out on the land when needed.

It depends on what your power outages are like. For example here we had some week+ long outages this winter after heavy rains and an unusual series of snow storms. Some neighbors have expensive and extensive battery + solar backup systems and still ran out of power. Their solar just wasn't generating enough. The neighbors with a new (efficient) house, solar and battery setup with the ability to charge from a generator did fine. They charged their batteries from the generator a few hours a day. Our old tech gas generator did ok though we had to run to town for more gas when the road was technically closed and we had to clear a lot of branches off the road and squeeze the truck under downed power lines to do it.

One interesting thing is with all the outages here this winter, a lot of folks with Tesla batteries had the batteries quit on them. They didn't run down, they just stopped producing power. Tesla support seems to be pretty hit or miss as well. Some people didn't get their batteries back on line for weeks. Based on that I would avoid their batteries.

Generator installers often sell the biggest generator they can. They don't want customers coming back and saying the generator didn't power everything. But those big generators go through propane fast. If you're on piped gas that's no problem but a number of our neighbors ran out of propane this winter during our outages. Then you're sitting in the dark with no heat or hot water. If you do a load calculation and possibly use load sheds on the big appliances so you can't run them at the same time, you can use a smaller more efficient generator.

 

[Torvy]

If you are worried about solar owners are being subsidized by non solar owners, then you should be outraged that the petrochemical industry received 20 BILLION in subsidies last year. All paid for by me and other tax payers. Then of course there is pharmaceutical, transportation and FARMING!

The solar amount is a drop in the bucket compared to these.

Here's the difference. Oil is a strategic resource, meaning we need it for national defense. Planes, tanks and such don't run on batteries and solar panels. Even if we never use oil for fuel, it is necessary for lubrication, plastics and asphalt for roads. Oil products are used for fertilizer and medicines, too.

This is like the difference between public domain for roads and infrastructure versus public domain for skate parks. They are both a thing, but one is vastly more important than the other.

 

[orezok]

Here's the difference. Oil is a strategic resource, meaning we need it for national defense. Planes, tanks and such don't run on batteries and solar panels. Even if we never use oil for fuel, it is necessary for lubrication, plastics and asphalt for roads. Oil products are used for fertilizer and medicines, too.

This is like the difference between public domain for roads and infrastructure versus public domain for skate parks. They are both a thing, but one is vastly more important than the other.

And electric is just as necessary for national defense. No computers, no defense.

 

[Torvy]

And electric is just as necessary for national defense. No computers, no defense.

Ah, but we've had electric without wind or solar. We don't NEED them, some people WANT them, that's a big difference when we are talking about spending other people's money.

 

[Mtsoxfan]

And electric is just as necessary for national defense. No computers, no d

Ah, but we've had electric without wind or solar. We don't NEED them, some people WANT them, that's a big difference when we are talking about spending other people's money.

Maybe we should be looking at alternatives to plastics, oil based lubricants etc. Google search shows they are out there as far as lubricants go.

At a glance: Hydro Lubricants made by Klüber Lubrication​

• Innovative technology: water as a core component with a cooling effect.
• Reduced energy consumption: friction and wear in components are minimised.
• Substantial temperature reduction in the component: the natural cooling effect of water increases the component's mileage and service life.
• No harmful solvents: improved occupational safety and health protection.

Just not lining the pockets of the people who make decisions for us...

 

[MAX-24-Dean]

If you are worried about solar owners are being subsidized by non solar owners, then you should be outraged that the petrochemical industry received 20 BILLION in subsidies last year. All paid for by me and other tax payers. Then of course there is pharmaceutical, transportation and FARMING!

The solar amount is a drop in the bucket compared to these.

Subsidies, A neccessary evil?
I am a firm believer in no subsidies for anyone. In order to pay out subsidies the supplier of the subsidy has to take money away from other people to pay for them.
Subsidies are just one big basket to me, taking money from everyone to redistribute the money to a percieved need.
In a national emergency, yes I can see a subsidy as being helpful.