Backwards

[Shawn Pixley]

Backwards!

Southern California Edison gave us our PTO (Permit to Operate) for the solar array. So, after flipping the breakers, charging the disconnect, turning the unit on, and waiting for it to warm up and calibrate, the meter reversed and ran backward even at six in the evening. I am so excited. The May bill won't be particularly low, but I look forward to seeing June's (I never thought I would say this about a bill).

[Raymond Fries]

Awesome...

Enjoy the savings! maybe a new tool treat to celebrate with the extra money.

Enjoy Life

[Greg Peterson]

Oklahoma is frowning on solar (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/21/207201/oklahoma-moves-to-discourage-solar-and-wind-power).

"The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf) (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''

The energy sector has a stake in keeping users on the grid. It would be extremely disruptive to the energy sector if large swaths of society were to adapt solar and drive plugin electric cars. Turning one's house into a energy plant, albeit a small one, is a disturbing thought I'm sure.

Congrats on your solar installation. What do you expect the ROI to be?

[Justin Ludwig]

Oklahoma is frowning on solar (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/21/207201/oklahoma-moves-to-discourage-solar-and-wind-power).

"The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf) (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''

The energy sector has a stake in keeping users on the grid. It would be extremely disruptive to the energy sector if large swaths of society were to adapt solar and drive plugin electric cars. Turning one's house into a energy plant, albeit a small one, is a disturbing thought I'm sure.

Congrats on your solar installation. What do you expect the ROI to be?



It's a sad state of affairs, Greg, but the US is capitalistic and driven by profit. T. Boone Pickens doesn't like the prospect of his billions being invested in Wind and Natural Gas energies being thrown down the proverbial drain.

[David Weaver]

The issue is a little bit less nefarious than Greg is making it out to be. They are doing two things:
* advising shareholders, and those shareholders are mostly individuals and retirement plans, etc.
* what greg didn't mention is that a lot of the concern has to do with the cost of keeping up the grid. When net metering is allowed, a user is still using the grid, but if they net out to zero, they are paying nothing to use it. A utility still has expenses to keep up the grid and those are going to have to be paid by someone. A lot of the utilities offloaded generation years ago because it looked like distribution was going to be more fiscally sound. Generation now, especially in the days of natural gas, can pop up quickly and be done very inexpensively.

I'd have an array just like Shawn, but if I were a utility that spent a bunch of money on the electric grid and was face with no shrink in ongoing costs but a decline in revenue, I'd be sounding the alarm, too.

[Greg Peterson]

The issue is a little bit less nefarious than Greg is making it out to be. They are doing two things:
* advising shareholders, and those shareholders are mostly individuals and retirement plans, etc.
* what greg didn't mention is that a lot of the concern has to do with the cost of keeping up the grid. When net metering is allowed, a user is still using the grid, but if they net out to zero, they are paying nothing to use it. A utility still has expenses to keep up the grid and those are going to have to be paid by someone. A lot of the utilities offloaded generation years ago because it looked like distribution was going to be more fiscally sound. Generation now, especially in the days of natural gas, can pop up quickly and be done very inexpensively.

I'd have an array just like Shawn, but if I were a utility that spent a bunch of money on the electric grid and was face with no shrink in ongoing costs but a decline in revenue, I'd be sounding the alarm, too.

My original post did include your argument, therefore I did not feel the need to provide additional arguments in favor of taxing wind and solar energy creators/users.

ALEC is sponsoring the industries interests in the arena. I think it would be unhelpful to presume they are empathetic to individuals who wish to be proactive in their personal energy solutions. ALEC is trying to build an even greater barrier than that which stands between the current system (pun not intended) and residential energy independence.

They are looking to make the investment into residential solar unattractive and economically challenging, pushing the RIO out farther yet. I understand the energy utilities concerns about institutional investors moving their funds elsewhere, but isn't that a function of a free market?

[Brian Elfert]

One problem with solar is the power company is they are buying your power for retail price and then selling it to someone else for the same retail price. They don't collect any money to pay for their overhead or the cost of distribution nor do they make any profit. The only way they make any money on buying back solar is if they can reduce the purchase of extra electricity at peak times. Buying electricity at peak times is very expensive for the power company and often costs more than they sell the power for.

I wouldn't mind doing solar if it didn't cost so darn much up front. The other disadvantage with grid tie is the solar system won't produce electricity when utility power is out. I'm sure they don't want line workers killed by electricity back fed into the system, but why can't they have a switch that opens when there is no utility power?

[David Weaver]

They are looking to make the investment into residential solar unattractive and economically challenging, pushing the RIO out farther yet. I understand the energy utilities concerns about institutional investors moving their funds elsewhere, but isn't that a function of a free market?

It's one thing to describe it as a boo hoo argument about investors, but another thing entirely when there is a chance it will threaten upkeep and maintenance of the grid. Not long ago, we heard how the grid was going to be upgraded so that alternative energy could be generated in one part of the country and distributed elsewhere. If net metering is common and the power companies are to continue to maintain the grid, then they will charge more for distribution, there's no other way for them to keep it in place. Items that are absolute necessities never really have been a free market (food, power, etc, because when you absolutely need to turn on a light or use electricity to run some sort of in home personal healthcare device, you're not going to want to have someone say, well, the free market removed the grid and you'll have to wait until tomorrow when the sun is out).

[Tom Stenzel]

The power company fixed the problem in my neighborhood. The new smart meters just installed run FORWARD no matter which way the power goes through it. You pay for the power you put on the grid.

-Tom

[David Weaver]

Tom, what state are you in? To my knowledge, my state is still a net metering state, but we also have "dumb" meters, too (and not so good prospects for solar electricity or wind because of the sun and wind deficiency for either).

[Jim Laumann]

Shawn

Could you post some pics of your setup - panels and the controller, etc in your house. Wife and I are considering it (solar power) for next summer.

Thanks

Jim

[Myk Rian]

I'm sure they don't want line workers killed by electricity back fed into the system, but why can't they have a switch that opens when there is no utility power?
Those are already available for when running a generator.

[Shawn Pixley]

The energy sector has a stake in keeping users on the grid. It would be extremely disruptive to the energy sector if large swaths of society were to adapt solar and drive plugin electric cars. Turning one's house into a energy plant, albeit a small one, is a disturbing thought I'm sure.

Congrats on your solar installation. What do you expect the ROI to be?



Recently, there have been several court cases lost by states and utility companies who were trying to avoid connecting small enery generating facilities (read home solar / fuel cell). California as a state is leading in the adoption of clean energy with some aggressive targets. In summer we can be subject to rolling blackouts and clean energy distributed minimizes the need for new large scale generation as well as more distribution imfrastructure. With this in mind, solar is pretty accepted here. There are both local rebates as well as a one-time tax credit.

We are in a tiered rate structure. The bottom two tiers are at or below the cost of producing & distributing electricity. Tiers 3,4, and 5 are above that rate. Tier 4 is 36 cents per KWH. There is a neighborhood baseline established for areas which determines the KWH for the Tiers. Our neighborhood has a lot of trophy houses and vacation rentals in addition to about 30 full-timers so the tiers are lower than other areas. For us we bought down to either break even in terms of energy production vs consumption. If energy stays the same price and our consumption remains at the same rate, we will break even in seven years. I think the chance of electricity rates not rising very small. If energy prices rise by 5%, then it pays back faster than 5 years.

There are a lot of variables in these calculations (days of sunlight, price of natural gas, distribution upgrades, degradation of the panels, etc.) so I montecarloed the variables. My main reason for doing this is to reduce outgoing money for when I retire. That may be a few years away, but it seems to be prudent to plan early as well as do the right thing for the earth. We are big into energy / resource efficiency and recycling. You know, that greener southern California surfer dude thing...

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I am curious how this works in certain instances. More specifically.... If I have a whole house generator, I disconnect the house from the grid so that I do not backfeed the power onto the line and potentially electrocute a lineman. Similarly, if the line is shorted, I also do not want to backfeed the line.

How does this type of concern work with solar?

Note: I mean because you are feeding power back.

[Brian Elfert]

Those are already available for when running a generator.

Yes, I have an automatic transfer switch for my standby generator. The thing is, almost all solar systems that are grid tie will cut the power generation ability altogether when utility power is lost. It wouldn't be a transfer switch, but just something that opens the connection to utility power when utility power is lost.

[Brian Elfert]

How does this type of concern work with solar?

Note: I mean because you are feeding power back.

Most grid tie solar systems quit making power when utility power is lost. That is how they prevent back feeding power into the grid. It is stupid that you have the ability to make your own electricity, but your power generation quits when power from the grid is lost.

[Shawn Pixley]

Shawn

Could you post some pics of your setup - panels and the controller, etc in your house. Wife and I are considering it (solar power) for next summer.

Thanks

Jim

Jim,
Sure. We have a flat roof with a single ply membrane on it.

289709

We had our roofer do the waterproofing and the Solar company did the rest. The roof is actually white. Fine sand and salt breeze deposits it up three stories to the roof. We hose down the panels as needed. Obviously it needs it now.

289706
Installation showing stanchions, rails, and boots.

289708

Electrical panels, subpanel, satellite / phone connection, disconnect and inverter. About half of this was added. Unfortunately this is on the windward side of the house.

289707

Installed solar array. The orientation is southwest. The angle is optimized for summer and afternoon light. All hardware is marine stainless steel and powdercoated aluminum. The panels are US made.

There is a Wifi connection from the controller to our network for monitoring and trouble shooting. There is supposed to be an App where I can monitor from my iPhone. I don't have this connected yet. Update, I'll get monthly bills for taxes and connection fees but I will only get one annual bill for net consumption.

[Shawn Pixley]

The solar inverter must have AC power as well as DC power to work. In normal conditions, the inverter must align the phases with the grid's to connect. When the grid goes down, the system shuts off. I am sure that you could get a proper disconnect to align it with a standby generator when the grid is down. Or there could be a disconnect between the panel and the meter to allow the solar array to run with the grid down without killing linemen. Conversely, you can get battery back-ups to store power like a large UPS does. The longest time we have experienced an outage is about 4 hours when the transformer in the lot next to us died a couple of years ago.

[Jim Matthews]

The killer app for rooftop arrays is local power storage.

Power to a bank of batteries first, then through the inverter onto the grid.
The current problem is cost, volume and weight of existing batteries make this cost prohibitive.

Given the reliability of the power grid, even in a high demand area like Southern California,
the risk for a complete outage is vanishingly low.

A better solution than batteries is a battery backup generator "All in One" unit.
These have some storage capacity and sit on a pad next to the home.

No special rooms required.

I foresee EVs and plug in hybrids as the portable storage unit in the future.

The economy of scale comes into play in purchasing batteries.
I believe Tesla has floated this idea, but it's more a marketing ploy for them.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/back-up-power.html

http://gas2.org/2011/08/03/the-nissan-leaf-electric-car-backup-home-power-generator/

[Greg Peterson]

It's one thing to describe it as a boo hoo argument about investors, but another thing entirely when there is a chance it will threaten upkeep and maintenance of the grid. Not long ago, we heard how the grid was going to be upgraded so that alternative energy could be generated in one part of the country and distributed elsewhere. If net metering is common and the power companies are to continue to maintain the grid, then they will charge more for distribution, there's no other way for them to keep it in place. Items that are absolute necessities never really have been a free market (food, power, etc, because when you absolutely need to turn on a light or use electricity to run some sort of in home personal healthcare device, you're not going to want to have someone say, well, the free market removed the grid and you'll have to wait until tomorrow when the sun is out).

It isn't a boo-hoo argument.Why should a residence that is providing peak hours supply to the grid be penalized?

That delivering power via the grid could become extremely expensive is not a valid reason to discourage adaptation of energy independance at the private citizen level.

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?

Instituatoonal investors will find other places to park their money. As solar becomes more common, it's cost will go down and energy providers will have to compete. What happens if new construction decide to not bother to connect to the grid? Will the Edisons decide these properties must help fund the grid because they are denying the industry it's necessary growth?

[Duane Meadows]

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?


If you are suggesting we can, I suggest an experiment. Use no energy for 1 week. Of course we will have to await the end of the experiment to here you results. The internet runs on... energy, also:)

[Art Mann]

It isn't a boo-hoo argument.Why should a residence that is providing peak hours supply to the grid be penalized?

That delivering power via the grid could become extremely expensive is not a valid reason to discourage adaptation of energy independance at the private citizen level.

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?

Instituatoonal investors will find other places to park their money. As solar becomes more common, it's cost will go down and energy providers will have to compete. What happens if new construction decide to not bother to connect to the grid? Will the Edisons decide these properties must help fund the grid because they are denying the industry it's necessary growth?

I think I can understand what David Weaver is saying. For now, it isn't possible to operate an average home off the grid. In order for the grid to remain in place, the power company is going to have to make enough money to maintain and sometimes expand it and still make a profit. The result is that if more people adopt solar power, the rates per kwh are going to have to go way up to compensate or there will be a very high "grid access" fee independent of consumption that will make up for lost kwh revenue. In the long run, there will be no free ride until the power company umbilical cord is cut entirely.

[David Weaver]

It isn't a boo-hoo argument.Why should a residence that is providing peak hours supply to the grid be penalized?


They should be compensated for the power they generate (whatever anyone else would get for generation), but probably not the distribution and transmission since they aren't actually doing either of those.

I'm suggesting that in the long term, we'll go whatever direction we're going to go. In the short term, we aren't going to tolerate a distribution system that can't handle peak demand when the weather isn't favorable for local power generation for a few days. To pretend that the system should ignore that fact is foolish.

[David Weaver]

I think I can understand what David Weaver is saying. For now, it isn't possible to operate an average home off the grid.

Exactly. When we have no need for the grid, then there will be no need for a rational system compensating the people who own and operate the grid (and anyone who has provided them equity or purchased debt so they could do it). In the meantime, the grid still needs to be maintained and nobody is going to do it for free. Trying to "stick it" to "big companies" rationale is just another veiled version of "it's OK if I make money, and I get to decide what level of it is OK, but it's not OK for someone else to".

I like to believe I have no problem compensating people for providing me with a service. Otherwise, I shouldn't be using such a service because I wouldn't want to work for free, either. That's our short term situation. I also don't like to compensate people for a service I don't use, and that's more of a long term issue with the grid - probably (our prospects for solar where I am are poor, and even worse for wind).

[Tom Stenzel]

Tom, what state are you in? To 9my knowledge, my state is still a net metering state, but we also have "dumb" meters, too (and not so good prospects for solar electricity or wind because of the sun and wind deficiency for either).

I'm in Livonia, MI. DTE Energy installed Openway Centron electronic meters. It has an interesting feature set. The LCD display provides all kinds of useless information. Current kilowatt usage? Sorry, no can do. But I can buy a gizmo that I plug in and use electricity to see how much electricity I'm using.

The reverse power being counted as normal usage was something I found out about online.

One feature that the meter has is my wireless outdoor thermometer is now all screwed up. If I want the thermometer to work I have to put a metal bucket over my fancy new meter.

For me it was not a win.

-Tom

[Jim Matthews]

Michigan is a net metering state.

Somebody's misreading the regs...
http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,4639,7-159-16393_48212_58124---,00.html

DTE charges for the maintenance and administration of connected power lines.
http://www.dteenergy.com/pdfs/netMeteringBrochure.pdf

Is your bill defining your PV supply to the grid as normal usage, and billing an administrative fee?
Do they credit your account at the retail price, per kW?

[Greg Peterson]

I'm suggesting that in the long term, we'll go whatever direction we're going to go. In the short term, we aren't going to tolerate a distribution system that can't handle peak demand when the weather isn't favorable for local power generation for a few days. To pretend that the system should ignore that fact is foolish.

We are a long way from a mass exodus from the grid by residential customers. I interpret the movement to tax PV and wind power as a shot across the bow. I don't believe the energy sector will cede their hold on society without a big fight. They have a vested interest in a continuation of the current system. They may argue that institutional investors would have less options or there wouldn't be enough customers to pay for the infrastructure, but I find their concerns transparent. They simply don't want residential housing off grid to catch on, even if it isn't fully ready for prime time.

I have to wonder what happens if PV and/or battery technology makes some major breakthrough and makes off grid practical. What then becomes of the energy sector when customers disconnect en masse?

I don't think there was ever a carburetor that was capable of producing 100 MPG performance that was bought and subsequently hidden by the oil companies to ensure demand for gasoline. But I don't doubt for a second that energy producers are prepared to prevent any technology that threatens their revenue.

[David Weaver]

In the long run, if there is a viable technology, we'll use it and any private industry that competes will lose. The surcharges and creative revenue generation will come via the government levels that lose revenue, though.

[Scott Shepherd]

Until solar is cost effective, it's not going to be mainstream. Promises of solar coming to a home near you and being affordable have been around for several decades now. The vast majority of solar installed is done by subsidizing it through tax breaks and credits. Without those, the ROI doesn't make sense. I have family that are directly impacted by power and spend their 9-5 job trying to find ways to reduce their power bill. They've looked at solar every way possible for their businesses and they have yet to be able to find a single instance of it making any sort of sense from a financial point of view.

Last time I spoke to him, the ROI on it was negative. The lifespan of the equipment was 20 years and the ROI was 24 (those numbers could be wrong, but it's the relationship between the two that is the point). So it'll be wore out before it's paid for itself.

[Art Mann]

If I understood an earlier post from Shawn, his electricity rates are around $0.36/kwh. That is 4 times the cost where I live. I can see why his setup might break even in just a few years. I have done a feasibility study for my own situation and the numbers aren't even close. It would be a losing investment for me, even if power rates go up 25%.

[David Weaver]

If I understood an earlier post from Shawn, his electricity rates are around $0.36/kwh. That is 4 times the cost where I live. I can see why his setup might break even in just a few years. I have done a feasibility study for my own situation and the numbers aren't even close. It would be a losing investment for me, even if power rates go up 25%.

It's 15-17 cents or so here, and we probably only have half the sun that southern cal does (just looked it up, we do have about half of the potential BTU or watts per day), and more hail. I haven't seen a lot of solar arrays, except for some on the eastern side of the state (school districts, etc, having them installed through grants on unused property, etc). They also seem to be popular on mennonite farms near where my wife grew up. Not on the majority of them or anything, but in a higher % than they are placed in general. But those farms are hooked into the grid.

[David Weaver]

The reverse power being counted as normal usage was something I found out about online.


Is that, by the way, due to lack of capability of the meter, or is it an issue where legal permission has been granted for the meter to operate that way? We don't have smart meters here, or not in my immediate area, at least, and if they are only optional, I'll never have one.

[Shawn Pixley]

Tiered rate stuctures are designed to promote conservation. Around here, the various energy companies find it difficult to build new generating facilities. Because of that and the capital investment required for the new generating plants, they are somewhat more embracing of alternative / clean energy.

There are three types of meters that I know about: simple & non-reversing, reversing - net metering, and Smart meters. The smart meters allow central throttling of usage during power shortages. You may opt-out of smart meters for a fee.

The central reality is threefold. We need to reduce electricity demand. We need to transition to cleaner electricity generation (especially away from coal). We need to have a distribution model that is geared to ensuring that electricity is where and when you need it. Many smaller generating facilities help by reducing the need for expanded central arteries. Producing electricity close to where it is used helps significantly. Only when consumers and utility companies are aligned in a long-term view will this become mainstream. Solar is not the only answer but merely one of the answers.

[Greg Peterson]

Exactly. When we have no need for the grid, then there will be no need for a rational system compensating the people who own and operate the grid (and anyone who has provided them equity or purchased debt so they could do it). In the meantime, the grid still needs to be maintained and nobody is going to do it for free. Trying to "stick it" to "big companies" rationale is just another veiled version of "it's OK if I make money, and I get to decide what level of it is OK, but it's not OK for someone else to".

I like to believe I have no problem compensating people for providing me with a service. Otherwise, I shouldn't be using such a service because I wouldn't want to work for free, either. That's our short term situation. I also don't like to compensate people for a service I don't use, and that's more of a long term issue with the grid - probably (our prospects for solar where I am are poor, and even worse for wind).

Maybe instead of being required to pay for energy sent to the grid, the utility company receives this free so as to offset possible or likely power generating upgrades.

I'm not interested in sticking it to anyone, but I do not trust the energy sector to quietly allow their revenue to be diminished.

Some accomodation to encourage adaption of sustainable energy should be made. Rates are going to increase regardless, the sooner we start migrating the better.

[Rick Potter]

Hey Shawn,

Congrats on the new system. Mine has been in for one year now, and we are using less than we produce. I got a Plug-in electric Ford C-Max in November and I am still using less than we produce. The next bill will be our yearly reckoning, and we are anxious to see how we do. The current bill shows us having about $500 of power in the bank. I hope they allow us to just bank it, rather than paying us for it. If they pay for it, it will be at 3 cents, not the 13 cents they would charge. I don't really care, as long as I am breaking even.

Our projected payoff is 4 1/2 years, and we are running a bit ahead of that schedule.

Rick Potter

[Scott Shepherd]

Our projected payoff is 4 1/2 years, and we are running a bit ahead of that schedule.

Rick Potter

Is that a 4 1/2 year payoff with you paying the full price, or a 4 1/2 year payoff and part of it was paid for through tax breaks or tax credits? I've not seen any reports of payoffs that quickly without someone else picking up part of the tab for it all.

[Brian Elfert]

yearly reckoning, and we are anxious to see how we do. The current bill shows us having about $500 of power in the bank. I hope they allow us to just bank it, rather than paying us for it. If they pay for it, it will be at 3 cents, not the 13 cents they would charge. I don't really care, as long as I am breaking even.

I think more and more electric utilities will start paying wholesale rates for solar power instead of retail rates most pay now. I'm assuming this utility is paying the wholesale rate which makes sense.

[Shawn Pixley]

Hey Shawn,

Congrats on the new system. Mine has been in for one year now, and we are using less than we produce. I got a Plug-in electric Ford C-Max in November and I am still using less than we produce. The next bill will be our yearly reckoning, and we are anxious to see how we do. The current bill shows us having about $500 of power in the bank. I hope they allow us to just bank it, rather than paying us for it. If they pay for it, it will be at 3 cents, not the 13 cents they would charge. I don't really care, as long as I am breaking even.

Our projected payoff is 4 1/2 years, and we are running a bit ahead of that schedule.

Rick Potter

Rick,

Thanks! I am glad to hear that yours is working well. Are you with SCE, PG&E or someone else? With SCE, we are allowed to keep rolling it over from my read of the terms. The only problem with rolling it over (beyond the disparity in rates) would be that you couldn't use the money to to pay the various fees.

So far, with two days worth of data, we generate ~42 KWh per day. Our average consumption over the last 12 months is 27 KWh per day. So we are stocking up the excess to offset the lower generating days in the winter. We got the wireless monitoring and Solar Edge Dashboard Software up yesterday. It is pretty slick.

Electric vehicles don't really pay off in a tiered structure unless you have Solar or an alternative recharging station. We may look into that in the future, but our current cars are pretty fuel efficient. Given that we have replaced 4 appliances and installed solar in the last 6 months, that would be down the path a bit.

[Rick Potter]

Shawn,
We are with SCE, and we have no intention to get a separate metering system for the car, as we plug it in whenever we pull into the garage, to keep it charged up. It also has a gas motor, but we haven't fueled up since January (I think). It goes about 20 miles at a time on juice, which works out pretty well for our use.

Scott,
That 4 1/2 year payoff is including all incentives, it is for the actual money we spent. We live in an area where we get plenty of year round sun, and our roof is situated correctly to get the most benefit from the sun, so we are in a sort of best case scenario for the system. My Aunt, 91, died two years ago and left us just enough to get the system, and we figured this was a meaningful way to invest the money. We think of her generosity every time we open the electric bill.

Rick Potter

[Scott Shepherd]

That 4 1/2 year payoff is including all incentives, it is for the actual money we spent. We live in an area where we get plenty of year round sun, and our roof is situated correctly to get the most benefit from the sun, so we are in a sort of best case scenario for the system. My Aunt, 91, died two years ago and left us just enough to get the system, and we figured this was a meaningful way to invest the money. We think of her generosity every time we open the electric bill.

Rick Potter

That's my point, without incentives, it's not worth doing, which means it's not very good at replacing any other source of power. It is when someone else paid for 1/2 of it through incentives, but when you have to shell it all out of your own pocket, it's not the value everyone hopes it will be.

[Shawn Pixley]

That's my point, without incentives, it's not worth doing, which means it's not very good at replacing any other source of power. It is when someone else paid for 1/2 of it through incentives, but when you have to shell it all out of your own pocket, it's not the value everyone hopes it will be.

Your argument is valid given current pricing of energy. However, when energy prices rise as they eventually must, it will less and less valid. Solar is not the only answer but should be included in a broad spectrum of alternative energy choises. The incentives do not represent 50% of the costs, but closer to 15-20% which then gives you the necessary information to perform a rudimentary senstitivity analysis. Solar works for our climate. Geothermal work in some locales. Wind or tidal energy are other choices. Those who only take a short-term view of issues have the same attitudes as those who overfish the ocean, over-log an environment, or other some such actions.

Given an ever increasing demand for energy and the inevitable shortage and price increases for fossil fuels, alternative energy will become an advantage. Those who wait for the obvious before starting anything will be well behind when they will be forced to change. When did Noah build the ark? Before the flood, before the flood.

[Dave Sheldrake]

We had one of the Green Part reps drop by a week or so ago promoting safer sustainable energy from Geo-Thermal, I asked her what the party position was on Nuclear and she looked at me in abstract horror."But Chernoybl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, we can't possible agree with anything nuclear"
She shot off rather quick when I pointed out geothermal is caused by the breakdown of U233 (itself an isotope of Th232 with a half life of 14 billion years)

cheers

Dave

[Art Mann]

Your argument is valid given current pricing of energy. However, when energy prices rise as they eventually must, it will less and less valid. Solar is not the only answer but should be included in a broad spectrum of alternative energy choises. The incentives do not represent 50% of the costs, but closer to 15-20% which then gives you the necessary information to perform a rudimentary senstitivity analysis. Solar works for our climate. Geothermal work in some locales. Wind or tidal energy are other choices. Those who only take a short-term view of issues have the same attitudes as those who overfish the ocean, over-log an environment, or other some such actions.

Given an ever increasing demand for energy and the inevitable shortage and price increases for fossil fuels, alternative energy will become an advantage. Those who wait for the obvious before starting anything will be well behind when they will be forced to change. When did Noah build the ark? Before the flood, before the flood.

The problem today is that there is no combination of renewable sources of energy now available that will even come close to replacing fossil fuels at a national level. The technology simply isn't ready yet. The inevitable outcome of the government effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is that we are going to have to accept a lower standard of living -- much, much lower.

[Chris Padilla]

I have had solar panels on my roof for almost 2 years now. I was presented with the model of: no money down, pay a yearly 2.9% increasing rate (for 20 years) per kWh that my panels produce. I started at $0.24/kWh and in June, I'll have my second rate hike. They own and fully warrant the panels...I simply rent them. Like Shawn, I'm in California (Northern) and we pay our electricity in tiers. The solar companies CAN make money (and I SAVE money) only if my electrical use puts me into the tier 3, 4, and 5 categories. I can pretty much guarantee that PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) will increase their tier 3-5 rates at a much faster rate than 2.9% per year...if history is any indication. I have a pool that I run that puts me into these tiers during the warmer months. I do have passive solar heating for the pool water (black PVC panels on the roof...opposite the solar panels). I also recently installed a heat pump electric water heater that replaced a gas one. Finally, I'm working on installing a hot water recirculation pump.

This model doesn't work for everyone. My next door neighbor has a very large oak tree in his front yard. It shades his house too much and they can't make enough electricity via the solar panels to make this work for him and them.

[Chris Padilla]

The problem today is that there is no combination of renewable sources of energy now available that will even come close to replacing fossil fuels at a national level. The technology simply isn't ready yet. The inevitable outcome of the government effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is that we are going to have to accept a lower standard of living -- much, much lower.

Such a pessimistic view!! Technology, like it always has, shall help pave the way!! Have faith! Now I'm not saying the gov't efforts in the carbon footprint arena is the way but at least something is being done.

[Dave Sheldrake]

The problem today is that there is no combination of renewable sources of energy now available that will even come close to replacing fossil fuels at a national level. The technology simply isn't ready yet. The inevitable outcome of the government effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is that we are going to have to accept a lower standard of living -- much, much lower.

There's several tiers of Nuclear that aren't really pushed yet Art, MSRE's and LIFTR's are well into construction in many countries other than the UK and USA, by 2050 40% of Indias power will come from Molten Salt reactors (they have the worlds biggest Th 232 reserves) The simple facts are the bond in fossil fuels just doesn't give rise to a very efficient system :( As to the technology ONRL has had it fully functional since 1957 :( a fuel source that is more common and cheaper than basic lead and it pains me that as yet we as a society don't capitalise on it.

cheers

Dave

[Dave Sheldrake]

I have had solar panels on my roof for almost 2 years now. I was presented with the model of: no money down, pay a yearly 2.9% increasing rate (for 20 years) per kWh that my panels produce. I started at $0.24/kWh


42.8 cents per kWh after 20 years

cheers

Dave

[Mel Fulks]

It's going to be a problem for someone at some time. The sun is going to burn out too!. Going to take a while.Government encouraged extravagant use of oil for a long time through "oil depletion allowances" etc. In 1970s United Nations did a
survey of oil and said we would run out in 200 years, don't have time to check it myself so I will take their word for it.I have enough to worry about ....like why did they stop telling kids to
hide under their desks during nuclear attack?

[Art Mann]

There's several tiers of Nuclear that aren't really pushed yet Art, MSRE's and LIFTR's are well into construction in many countries other than the UK and USA, by 2050 40% of Indias power will come from Molten Salt reactors (they have the worlds biggest Th 232 reserves) The simple facts are the bond in fossil fuels just doesn't give rise to a very efficient system :( As to the technology ONRL has had it fully functional since 1957 :( a fuel source that is more common and cheaper than basic lead and it pains me that as yet we as a society don't capitalise on it.

cheers

Dave

I hope the government and society in general will permit the power companies to develop and use nuclear power. That is certainly not the case today.

[Rick Potter]

I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.

[Jim Matthews]

It's going to be a problem for someone at some time. The sun is going to burn out too!. Going to take a while.Government encouraged extravagant use of oil for a long time through "oil depletion allowances" etc. In 1970s United Nations did a
survey of oil and said we would run out in 200 years, don't have time to check it myself so I will take their word for it.I have enough to worry about ....like why did they stop telling kids to
hide under their desks during nuclear attack?

Not going to happen in your lifetime, so it's not your problem?

Getting off the Food Chain required concerted effort.
(Dying in a bed is better than dying on someone else's dinner table.)

Extending our range, into cold and dark places gave us room to explore.
(Needle and thread, fire, woven fabrics)

Collecting, collating and distribution of hard-learned lessons made it easier for the next generation to carry on.
(Spoken language, writing and libraries)

Propulsion systems made travel for any number of reasons possible.
(Boats, planes, trains and automobiles move us and stuff reliably.)

Space travel revealed that there's nobody "next door".
(The atmosphere as seen from space akin to a layer of paint on a golf ball.)

At one point, we looked in front of us and thought, "Why not, it's just a matter of going there."

You've said, "Why bother, I'll never get there myself."

If you've got grandkids, you're just handing off the mess we made for them to clean up.
Some legacy, Mel.

PS - I'm an advocate for Nuclear Power, as demonstrated by the fluidized bed reactor in Idaho.
There are also valuable approaches promulgated by touchy-feely groups like Seven Generations Ahead (http://www.sevengenerationsahead.org/).

Putting your head in the sand isn't leadership.

[David Weaver]

Jim, that's a bit harsh and unrealistic. I doubt there's a lot Mel could do about energy, but probably many other things that he could affect today or in the near future, and his comment is more out of pragmatism than idealism.

I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive. I would do the same thing as rick and shawn have done if the economic circumstances, rebates, and most importantly, the sunlight here was similar, but we really have no clue what any future energy solution might be. It may or may not include wind and solar. If it does not, then the subsidies spent on wind and solar will effectively have lowered the standard of living on average without any positive yield vs. something like nuclear or natural gas.

[Duane Meadows]

I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.

If it were that economical here, I'd go for it. However all the calculations I've done show a 13- 18 year payback with subsidies, and up to 46 years without. That is for a system that under ideal conditions would generate only 75% of our current consumption. Our consumption isn't all that high either... average around $200/month on the second most expensive power company(last I checked anyway) in Ohio.

Total system cost for solar approaches half the cost of my property... 4+ acres, house, and shop included. Wind power may be somewhat less, but not much. Have even considered water power.

As for subsidies, I have mixed feelings on that as well. Should you take advantage of them? Maybe, just remember, there ain't no free lunch. Every tax payer is helping you pay for your system, and it cost us waaaay more than your savings! If the national debt were not so high, maybe. Frankly I really can't afford to help you all that much!

Probably too close to political. I'll quit while I am ahead.

[Art Mann]

I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.

While I don't agree with the government's policies on subsidizing solar energy or electric cars, I would absolutely take advantage of those subsidizes if they made sense for me. On a different note, you may want to consider that it is State government policies that caused your electric bill to be possibly 4 times what mine is.

[Jim Matthews]

Jim, that's a bit harsh and unrealistic.

This kind of fatalist, "Even the Sun will burn out someday." is a cheap cop out from the responsibility to progeny
that our forebears practiced. Our generation can't duck the check, and this kind of drivel makes for sad commentary
on those lucky enough to have the World handed to them in remarkably good condition.

We would never have gone to the Moon were this attitude prevalent, then.

Can you imagine?
"I dunno, it's so far and there's no WiFi... I would hate to miss Matlock."




I remind you that I'm a recent convert to Nuclear power as the most logical and practical
replacement heat source for making big wheels turn - in now way do I think Solar or Wind power
can be scaled up sufficiently to supply the 4 billion people that want to flip the switch.

[Mel Fulks]

Jim,I appreciate your confidence in me,but "if nominated I will not run;if elected I will not serve". Will continue to pay taxes.

[Art Mann]

I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive. I would do the same thing as rick and shawn have done if the economic circumstances, rebates, and most importantly, the sunlight here was similar, but we really have no clue what any future energy solution might be. It may or may not include wind and solar. If it does not, then the subsidies spent on wind and solar will effectively have lowered the standard of living on average without any positive yield vs. something like nuclear or natural gas.

David, I think you have summed it up very accurately and succinctly. Unfortunately, it is politicians and ideologues who are driving the decision making instead of engineers and scientists.

[Greg Peterson]

I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive.


David - I respect your pragmatism. It's a very dominant attribute in your writing. Kudos for thoughtful posts.

Given our options, it seems obvious that there is no single source that can replace fossil fuels. Our current energy demands are met by coal, nuclear, hydro and oil, so the idea that we have a monolithic energy supply is false. We are adding solar, geothermal and wind to the supply chain. The established interests are less than enthusiastic about allowing these technologies onto the playing field.

I do think at some point we will need our version of the Apollo program when it comes to creating a sustainable energy strategy. Will we have the courage, conviction and stamina to see it through, or will we fall prey to the vested interests who will no doubt tell us that the conversion is dangerous, unfair and not good for us?

We are on a collision course, and while it may occur some time down the line, I would hope we would soon remember the forward thinking attitudes of those that delivered to us the advances of our society. They recognized the collective value of moving the ball even though the return on investment may take some time, perhaps not even to be realized in their lifetime.

This is a matter to large to dismiss as not economically viable or unfair to the current producers. We need to find ways to make it economically viable, because the current cost is bending upwards and there is no end in sight. Eventually our current sources will be too expensive for most. Then what?

[David Weaver]

We would never have gone to the Moon were this attitude prevalent, then.


That's really not accurate. It's more accurate to say that we went to the moon because we developed the means necessary to do it. We didn't develop a means, and then try to find one that satisfied what may get us back to the moon in the future and was easier on the environment or less dangerous or so on and so forth. If we would've tried to solve the problems in getting to the moon the same way we're subsidizing energy solutions that may be or may not be, we never would've gotten to the moon. We'd still be trying marginal solutions when the current means were there in front of us.

The real innovation in solar or anything else won't come until they are forced to compete on an even basis, and that means foreign production combined with automation. Until then, natural gas and other means make a whole lot more sense when the issue of energy cost increasing the cost of everything else we do (including manufacturing, or due to costs, not manufacturing and purchasing from elsewhere). Playing ideologue has real costs, and most of the ideologues don't care as long as the real cost isn't something that affects them or at least something they perceive affects them.

[David Weaver]

David - I respect your pragmatism. It's a very dominant attribute in your writing. Kudos for thoughtful posts.

Given our options, it seems obvious that there is no single source that can replace fossil fuels. Our current energy demands are met by coal, nuclear, hydro and oil, so the idea that we have a monolithic energy supply is false. We are adding solar, geothermal and wind to the supply chain. The established interests are less than enthusiastic about allowing these technologies onto the playing field.

I do think at some point we will need our version of the Apollo program when it comes to creating a sustainable energy strategy. Will we have the courage, conviction and stamina to see it through, or will we fall prey to the vested interests who will no doubt tell us that the conversion is dangerous, unfair and not good for us?

We are on a collision course, and while it may occur some time down the line, I would hope we would soon remember the forward thinking attitudes of those that delivered to us the advances of our society. They recognized the collective value of moving the ball even though the return on investment may take some time, perhaps not even to be realized in their lifetime.

This is a matter to large to dismiss as not economically viable or unfair to the current producers. We need to find ways to make it economically viable, because the current cost is bending upwards and there is no end in sight. Eventually our current sources will be too expensive for most. Then what?

I just don't think we have the stomach to do an apollo style (we need to get it done) because of the pull of political minorities and the ability to stop things in the courts, etc. And we don't have an "enemy" that we're competing with like we were when we were pushing to outdo the soviets as part of a gigantic overall attempt to show that "our way of life is better". We're listless now and more satisfied to win useless arguments (via courts, etc) than solve problems.

[Dave Sheldrake]

David, I think you have summed it up very accurately and succinctly. Unfortunately, it is politicians and ideologues who are driving the decision making instead of engineers and scientists.

Dam Art!! exactly!! as said by Alvin Weinberg (the inventor of the Molten Salt AND High Pressure Nuclear Reactors (that he later said were not safe))


in now way do I think Solar or Wind power
can be scaled up sufficiently to supply the 4 billion people that want to flip the switch.

The big problem with wind and solar is they are destructive technologies, people don't want huge swathes of land torn up to build wind farms or solar fields. On larger scales the energy density of wind and solar is too low and the cost of transporting / storing that energy is too high for any company to get into unless they get the repeat business from it (GE etc make no money on building reactors for example, they make from the fuel contracts).

Eventually the choices will be made for us, either destructive or constructive but they will be made one way or the other.

cheers

Dave

[Scott Shepherd]

The big problem with wind and solar is they are destructive technologies, people don't want huge swathes of land torn up to build wind farms or solar fields.


And you have to see the irony in people wanting wind turbines because it "doesn't have the red bellied sap sucker's environment", only to see that all the Raptors are dying by the 100's from running into the blades. Glad we saved one birds habitat to kill 100's of other precious raptors.

[Shawn Pixley]

While I don't agree with the government's policies on subsidizing solar energy or electric cars, I would absolutely take advantage of those subsidizes if they made sense for me. On a different note, you may want to consider that it is State government policies that caused your electric bill to be possibly 4 times what mine is.

Do you agree with the oil subsidies? These dwarf the solar subsidies...

[David Weaver]

Do you agree with the oil subsidies? These dwarf the solar subsidies...

I'd like to see a net cost per million btu of energy, with all subsidies and taxes taken into account. That would be more instructive. A nominal amount that's not unitized doesn't tell us much.

[Rick Potter]

I forgot to mention that I also got $4007 in rebates when I bought the car. I took them and ran, like the cowardly, anti environmental bigot that I am.

I do have to admit, there is one person who harbors discontent for my solar system. My next door neighbor can see it if she goes to an upstairs bedroom window, and leans out. She has barely spoken to us since the installation. She threatened to plant a tree to block the sun, but I informed her that was illegal by CA law. Everything I do seems to upset her. When we built our mother in law quarters, she complained we could look down into her house. The addition is single story and we brought her over to show her we couldn't peek, then we spent a couple grand trimming that side of the house nicely to look good from her yard. Then we spent another grand raising our block wall so she could have more privacy (without asking her to help pay). Finally, we spent almost $1500 extra on the solar panels to get the ones that are better looking, for when she leans out that window.

I am done. $4,000 spent trying to be a good neighbor, and it isn't enough. I am showing her though, I quit throwing her kids balls back into her yard.

An interesting footnote....her neighbor on the other side just got a bid on solar :D.

[Frederick Skelly]

I do have to admit, there is one person who harbors discontent for my solar system. My next door neighbor can see it if she goes to an upstairs bedroom window, and leans out. She has barely spoken to us since the installation. She threatened to plant a tree to block the sun, but I informed her that was illegal by CA law. Everything I do seems to upset her. When we built our mother in law quarters, she complained we could look down into her house. The addition is single story and we brought her over to show her we couldn't peek, then we spent a couple grand trimming that side of the house nicely to look good from her yard. Then we spent another grand raising our block wall so she could have more privacy (without asking her to help pay). Finally, we spent almost $1500 extra on the solar panels to get the ones that are better looking, for when she leans out that window.

I am done. $4,000 spent trying to be a good neighbor, and it isn't enough.

Sounds like youve been mighty reasonable Rick.

Im curious about how that CA law works. If your neighbor has a tree that blocks your solar, she gets fined or what? Hows it work if the tree was there before your solar was installed? Any idea?

[Shawn Pixley]

David,

That is a valid argument. The subsidies are large and are over $ 35B for the 2002 to 2008 period. The cost per BTU would be small. However, I would offer that the oil companies are incredibly profitable. Why is it in the public interest to increase their profits through subsidies?

However, I think that if you boycot one form of energy over subsidies and ignore the similar subsidy in another form of energy, it is hippocritical.

I favor the long view approach. History is littered with civilizations / societies that collapsed because they did not change and adapt before they had to. If you wait until hits you in the head like a 2x4, some other group who didn't wait has an advantage. People who only think in the near-term find themselves at a disadvantage in the long run.

[Jim Matthews]

We're listless now and more satisfied to win useless arguments (via courts, etc) than solve problems.

Nice to see we're in agreement.
That's as close to a parenthetical reference to what I said, earlier.

We don't lack the means, we lack the collective anything to advance as a species.
It's not for lack of advance notice, either.

FWIW - I couldn't give a damn about how many birds fly into windfarms, that's a canard (if you'll excuse the pun)
forwarded by people that value their vista over keeping the lights on,
and it's an example of what you've just noted.

As if pumping effluent into waterways and heavy metals into the air weren't as bad, or worse.
You can't claim that you're protecting a species by perpetuating the chief killer of same.

Shenanigans

[Mike Henderson]

I have a solar system, also, in southern California. I've had it in about a year and have generated about as much as we use. I'm on "time of use" billing instead of tiered billing and I generate the electricity during peak time, so I get more for it than I pay for the electricity I use in the evening - so I have a credit balance with the power company. I elected to get paid for the excess simply because it looks like I'll continue to run a credit balance each year.

Regarding rates, during peak times, when solar is putting out the most electricity, the electric company used to have to bring "peaking generators" on line at high costs. So solar helps reduce the power company's cost during those times.

But maintenance of the grid is an issue. All of us with solar could not really operate without the grid. It's only fair that we should pay a "grid maintenance" fee each month. I don't know how the amount would be determined (so that it's fair) but I'm sure we could come up with some rate structure that we could all agree to.

Eventually, it'll either be a grid maintenance fee, or wholesale rates for the electricity. The present rate structure for solar cannot be maintained for the long run.

In response to the person who commented about the incentives - that solar would not make financial sense without the incentives - yes, incentives may be necessary at this time to get people to install the systems. What we're seeing, however, is that the financial predictions are coming true. The increased volume of solar is driving down the price of panels and installation cost. If trends continue, we should see solar achieving parity with other generating technologies (without incentives) in a few years. If so, the incentives did what they were intended to do.

I view this as similar to the government funding of the development of the Internet. At the time it was developed, no business was going to pay for that development. The government funding allowed the developers to develop the technologies necessary for the Internet and it took off. Solar looks like it's going to do the same.

Mike

[David Weaver]

David,

That is a valid argument. The subsidies are large and are over $ 35B for the 2002 to 2008 period. The cost per BTU would be small. However, I would offer that the oil companies are incredibly profitable. Why is it in the public interest to increase their profits through subsidies?

However, I think that if you boycot one form of energy over subsidies and ignore the similar subsidy in another form of energy, it is hippocritical.

I favor the long view approach. History is littered with civilizations / societies that collapsed because they did not change and adapt before they had to. If you wait until hits you in the head like a 2x4, some other group who didn't wait has an advantage. People who only think in the near-term find themselves at a disadvantage in the long run.

Yeah, I don't really care how it's structured, I care about the net revenue (taxes minus subsidies). I don't really love subsidies for established items in general, but solar should be established by now, anyway, and so should wind. In my opinion they should pay net taxes and not be on the net subsidy side. When I say I don't really love subsidies, I guess that means I care a little - I'd rather see taxes only and no subsidies - the market itself tends to find whatever is easiest and most efficient when there is enforcement of anti trust and no abuse of legal systems. Subsidies distort that, and if it's easier to search out subsidies than it is to find legitimate solutions, then that's what the market will do.

I don't think using energy less expensive than solar and wind (like natural gas) at this point threatens our society nearly so much as detaching the notion of compensation vs. actually doing something that has value to other people. I would imagine collapse in prior societies probably had more to do with economic structure issues than technological or environmental.

Sometimes when you know something is a better solution, you just have to do it rather than not doing it because you don't want to be doing it in 50 years. Ignoring something you can do efficiently because you may not want to do it later doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[David Weaver]

I have a solar system, also, in southern California. I've had it in about a year and have generated about as much as we use. I'm on "time of use" billing instead of tiered billing and I generate the electricity during peak time, so I get more for it than I pay for the electricity I use in the evening - so I have a credit balance with the power company. I elected to get paid for the excess simply because it looks like I'll continue to run a credit balance each year.

Regarding rates, during peak times, when solar is putting out the most electricity, the electric company used to have to bring "peaking generators" on line at high costs. So solar helps reduce the power company's cost during those times.

But maintenance of the grid is an issue. All of us with solar could not really operate without the grid. It's only fair that we should pay a "grid maintenance" fee each month. I don't know how the amount would be determined (so that it's fair) but I'm sure we could come up with some rate structure that we could all agree to.

Eventually, it'll either be a grid maintenance fee, or wholesale rates for the electricity. The present rate structure for solar cannot be maintained for the long run.

In response to the person who commented about the incentives - that solar would not make financial sense without the incentives - yes, incentives may be necessary at this time to get people to install the systems. What we're seeing, however, is that the financial predictions are coming true. The increased volume of solar is driving down the price of panels and installation cost. If trends continue, we should see solar achieving parity with other generating technologies (without incentives) in a few years. If so, the incentives did what they were intended to do.

I view this as similar to the government funding of the development of the Internet. At the time it was developed, no business was going to pay for that development. The government funding allowed the developers to develop the technologies necessary for the Internet and it took off. Solar looks like it's going to do the same.

Mike

There's a difference here, though. What's made solar partly viable is cheap international production. It's been around in PV cells for how long now, 50 years?

Now, I don't care as much about this as it may seem, I'm looking at it as more of an optimization issue and not something where I carry water for one group or another (well, I carry water for whatever is optimal).

[Art Mann]

Do you agree with the oil subsidies? These dwarf the solar subsidies...

No, I don't agree with any sort of government subsidies. I might be in favor of government subsidies to develop new energy technologies but as I already pointed out, those decisions are made by politicians rather than engineers. That is why you get billions of dollars wasted on a company like Solindra with no positive benefit to anyone other than a few politicians and their friends. My position is to let private enterprise finance the research and let them reap the benefits of their expenditures. I don't like the idea of government choosing winners and losers, be it oil or solar energy development or wind energy or whatever.

[Jim Matthews]

There's a difference here, though. What's made solar partly viable is cheap international production. It's been around in PV cells for how long now, 50 years?

Now, I don't care as much about this as it may seem, I'm looking at it as more of an optimization issue and not something where I carry water for one group or another (well, I carry water for whatever is optimal).

If you carry enough water, you've got a viable hydro system.
That's an inefficient way to convert biomass to electricity.

[David Weaver]

I could stand to convert about 40 pounds of my biomass to something else!

[Jim Matthews]

I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years.

About the same outlay for us, at 41 degrees North longitude.
Given the electric utility rates, our consumption and projected output from the PVs,
ROI was closer to 20 years.

I won't be in this house, that long.

If the utilities cut us a check for the power produced, in excess of our consumption - it would be an entirely different matter.

[Jim Matthews]

If I could turn my couch into a generator, with some sort of Piezo-electric array - maybe it would pay off.

It's not extra, it's "ballast" to maintain an even keel.
It's necessary for those of us that still saw by hand.

[Greg Peterson]

That is why you get billions of dollars wasted on a company like Solindra with no positive benefit to anyone other than a few politicians and their friends. My position is to let private enterprise finance the research and let them reap the benefits of their expenditures. I don't like the idea of government choosing winners and losers, be it oil or solar energy development or wind energy or whatever.

Actually, the government guaranteed $527 million. Solyndra failed, but overall, government backed loans have been extremely low risk and very successful over the past twenty years.

Private enterprise doesn't do basic research. Private enterprise finds a use for the results of basic research.

[Julie Moriarty]

Backwards!

Southern California Edison gave us our PTO (Permit to Operate) for the solar array. So, after flipping the breakers, charging the disconnect, turning the unit on, and waiting for it to warm up and calibrate, the meter reversed and ran backward even at six in the evening. I am so excited. The May bill won't be particularly low, but I look forward to seeing June's (I never thought I would say this about a bill).

Everyone's dream, to have the utility company put money in your pocket instead of taking it out. :D Very cool Shawn!

[Art Mann]

Actually, the government guaranteed $527 million. Solyndra failed, but overall, government backed loans have been extremely low risk and very successful over the past twenty years.

Private enterprise doesn't do basic research. Private enterprise finds a use for the results of basic research.

I am afraid I have to disagree with you on private companies doing research. They, in fact, do the vast majority of worthwhile research and development. For example, virtually all modern drug development is funded by private research. Agricultural chemicals are all developed through private research. Modern building materials were all developed with private research. The semiconductors which make modern communication and computing technology possible were all developed through private company research. I could go on forever. It is more difficult to try to think of a product which was developed through original government funding. Government funded research has its place but it is small in comparison to private industry. Nowadays, it is popular to think of corporate America as evil but they were almost exclusively responsible for the products and prosperity we now enjoy. Do a serious study of the history of technology and you will see what I mean.

[Shawn Pixley]

Yeah, I don't really care how it's structured, I care about the net revenue (taxes minus subsidies). I don't really love subsidies for established items in general, but solar should be established by now, anyway, and so should wind. In my opinion they should pay net taxes and not be on the net subsidy side. When I say I don't really love subsidies, I guess that means I care a little - I'd rather see taxes only and no subsidies - the market itself tends to find whatever is easiest and most efficient when there is enforcement of anti trust and no abuse of legal systems. Subsidies distort that, and if it's easier to search out subsidies than it is to find legitimate solutions, then that's what the market will do.

I don't think using energy less expensive than solar and wind (like natural gas) at this point threatens our society nearly so much as detaching the notion of compensation vs. actually doing something that has value to other people. I would imagine collapse in prior societies probably had more to do with economic structure issues than technological or environmental.

Sometimes when you know something is a better solution, you just have to do it rather than not doing it because you don't want to be doing it in 50 years. Ignoring something you can do efficiently because you may not want to do it later doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

What tends to frst my hide are those who loudly decry subsidies on solar or other clean technologies, but are silent around the much larger subsidies to incredibly profitable fossil fuel industries. Why the differential outrage?

To the central points:

Industry to regulate itself. It has been shown many times that industry cannot regulate itself. On this, we wil agree to disagree.

Free market competition. This is a bit more complicated. Conceptually, this should work and industry A should operate on the same playing field as industry B. If we are to believe that fair competition will ultimately benefit the consumers because people will act according to their own enlightened self interest. (The Adam Smith "Invisble Hand") If that were true, I would have no issue here either. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's premise is not true, it is dogma quoted that is unsubstantiated in the real world. (The Socialist Maefetso of "man is by nature, free, equal and socially concious" is equally flawed). However, people don't always act according to their enlightened self interest. We can see many examples played out in the news relative to malfeasence of envirnonmental, competition, and other elements. In the book, "Predictably Irrational", the author shows numerous examples of where people do not act as they should relative to teir own self interest. This connundrum is beyond the scope of this forum. We in our society may need to muddle through these contradictions to find a more ideal solution. I don't see how alternative energies that we must ultimately embrace threatens in any way our society. Here also, we should agree to disagree.

As to the collapse of other societies, I would point out Easter Island as one such society where they deforested the land to where it couldn't sustain the society. I could also make the case that England lost their empire and standing in the world, because they didn't and wouldn't recognize that the colonial state that they created could not survive without changes in how the colonies were governed and shared in the wealth of their production. A fallacy of planning is to assume that the future is an extension of the present and immediate past.

[Scott Shepherd]

The sad reality of it is that if none of it matters much at all. When can be the cleanest, most energy efficient country in the world and it's not going to matter one bit when you have the rest of the globe, with places like China and India doing whatever they want to do and dumping more pollution into the atmosphere than we could do it 10 lifetimes.

Is is a noble cause? Certainly. Is it going to matter? Probably not.

[Shawn Pixley]

No, I don't agree with any sort of government subsidies. I might be in favor of government subsidies to develop new energy technologies but as I already pointed out, those decisions are made by politicians rather than engineers. That is why you get billions of dollars wasted on a company like Solindra with no positive benefit to anyone other than a few politicians and their friends. My position is to let private enterprise finance the research and let them reap the benefits of their expenditures. I don't like the idea of government choosing winners and losers, be it oil or solar energy development or wind energy or whatever.

I certainly would not hold up Solindra as a shining example. However, you should get your facts straight. It was 500 Million dollars, not Billions. Furthermore, the subsidies to fossil fuel companies dwarf this. These same companies are posting record profits. Why the conditional principles? The hue and cry over subsidies to develop alternative energy is disproportionate to that of the fossil fuel companies.

Governement has used investment in education, innovation or infrastructure with no immediate payback that has been very succesful.

Eisenhauer and the interstate system.
Public education for all.
Public health and sanitation.

These are all examples where private enterprise would not invest and are generally seen a positive to society today. However when these were first proposed, they were seen as boondoggles and wastes of taxpayer dollars because no one could see immediate returns. My point here is that companies / corporations have an inherrant focus on short term profits vs. long-term growth / returns. That is their bias built into the laws around corporations. Someone needs to look to long view. It will not be corporations. Be it an oligarchy in Greece, the Republic of Rome, the Constitutional Monarchy of England or Sweden, or the Democratic Republic of the United States, they are charged with looking out for the long view of interests of its people.

[Mel Fulks]

Solyndra never had a chance of making money and they knew it early on. And it didn't just fail , the money was squandered due to lack of oversight. For really idiotic ventures ....Only the Feds can help.

[David Weaver]

What tends to frst my hide are those who loudly decry subsidies on solar or other clean technologies, but are silent around the much larger subsidies to incredibly profitable fossil fuel industries. Why the differential outrage?

To the central points:

Industry to regulate itself. It has been shown many times that industry cannot regulate itself. On this, we wil agree to disagree.

Free market competition. This is a bit more complicated. Conceptually, this should work and industry A should operate on the same playing field as industry B. If we are to believe that fair competition will ultimately benefit the consumers because people will act according to their own enlightened self interest. (The Adam Smith "Invisble Hand") If that were true, I would have no issue here either. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's premise is not true, it is dogma quoted that is unsubstantiated in the real world. (The Socialist Maefetso of "man is by nature, free, equal and socially concious" is equally flawed). However, people don't always act according to their enlightened self interest. We can see many examples played out in the news relative to malfeasence of envirnonmental, competition, and other elements. In the book, "Predictably Irrational", the author shows numerous examples of where people do not act as they should relative to teir own self interest. This connundrum is beyond the scope of this forum. We in our society may need to muddle through these contradictions to find a more ideal solution. I don't see how alternative energies that we must ultimately embrace threatens in any way our society. Here also, we should agree to disagree.

As to the collapse of other societies, I would point out Easter Island as one such society where they deforested the land to where it couldn't sustain the society. I could also make the case that England lost their empire and standing in the world, because they didn't and wouldn't recognize that the colonial state that they created could not survive without changes in how the colonies were governed and shared in the wealth of their production. A fallacy of planning is to assume that the future is an extension of the present and immediate past.

The main point here is still being missed. I'd imagine that the cost per btu for oil and natural gas is much lower, and the net effect in revenue is positive and very large. the net effect of revenue in solar is probably significantly negative. Someone pays that, either in collection of revenue from someone else to pay the cost or services that were offered based on the revenue collected from oil and natural gas cease. Now, the second doesn't happen in society today, so the money either comes from new revenue sources or increases in other revenue sources.

There is much more distortion from free market in solar than there is in natural gas and oil, at least in terms of net revnue per btu of energy. I think that's a problem. At this point, I don't think it's needed for solar, and we certainly don't need to get caught up doing dumb things, like manufacturing solar cells here at several times the cost they'd be manufactured elsewhere. Where china or someone else manufactures items efficiently in terms of cost, we shouldn't try to ignore the fact that energy is still a commodity and if the inputs are lower (like chinese solar panels), that's the direction the money will flow.

If solar was equal to oil and natural gas on a net basis in terms of revenue, then I wouldn't have mentioned the whole scenario.

I don't know that much about oil because this isn't an oil producing region, but the effect of natural gas has pretty much just been we've taken money from the drillers in fees and in leases. And to me, as a user of energy, the cost to heat my house has dropped to just over half of what it was, and the effect has been that we can transfer electricity production from coal to gas in the region. Solar is not there, instead it has cost enormous amounts of OPM (other peoples' money) without even accounting for lost revenue that other sources would've generated.

When that isn't true, then I'll stop mentioning net revenue per btu. If I were in a position to benefit from a solar array, of course I'd still do it. But it wouldn't make me deny the fact that per kw hr, natural gas costs less than half of solar, and it is a much more reliable source. When you double the cost to produce energy (or more), someone pays, and since we are all consumers of energy and lots of it, someone pays a lot.

[Scott Shepherd]

they are charged with looking out for the long view of interests of its people.

Like bankrupting the country by spending more than it could ever possibly taken in, even if it confiscated every penny of every person with over $1,000,000 in their bank accounts couldn't pay 1 year's debt?

It's not in the best interest of any countries people for people to spend money they don't have or have no way to get. I'd say that's a far greater risk than debating solar vs. oil. Solar has been around for 30-40 years that I can remember. If it was such an amazingly efficient way to delivery energy, it would be in every single home and business in this country by now. However, it's not much further along than it was 20 years ago, aside from the fact that when you have the government (us) pay for 1/2 of the system.

So if we drop the price in half, it's a bargain. If we leave it at full price, no one wants to invest in it. Something's wrong with that model. With all the colleges and people working on alternative energy, no one seems to be able to make it affordable. Even having the panels made in China doesn't work. If China can't make it cost effective, then it probably doesn't make much sense.

Big oil is constantly attacked, yet people never want to compare it to any other industry. Do the oil companies get tax breaks? Sure. Do Healthcare companies? Sure. Do Auto Manufactures? Sure. I can't think of industry that doesn't get some sort of break. If you want to cut the oil ones out, let's pony up and cut out all of them. But don't cheery pick them because you don't agree with one of them. Also remember that most every retirement plan in this country is invested in energy companies, meaning all those that want to see it taken down do so while watching their own retirements plans diminish. They are publicly traded companies, when means most people reading this forum are actually the owners, not Darth Vader, running it from the Death Star like some would have you believe.

[Art Mann]

I certainly would not hold up Solindra as a shining example. However, you should get your facts straight. It was 500 Million dollars, not Billions. Furthermore, the subsidies to fossil fuel companies dwarf this. These same companies are posting record profits. Why the conditional principles? The hue and cry over subsidies to develop alternative energy is disproportionate to that of the fossil fuel companies.

Governement has used investment in education, innovation or infrastructure with no immediate payback that has been very succesful.

Eisenhauer and the interstate system.
Public education for all.
Public health and sanitation.

These are all examples where private enterprise would not invest and are generally seen a positive to society today. However when these were first proposed, they were seen as boondoggles and wastes of taxpayer dollars because no one could see immediate returns. My point here is that companies / corporations have an inherrant focus on short term profits vs. long-term growth / returns. That is their bias built into the laws around corporations. Someone needs to look to long view. It will not be corporations. Be it an oligarchy in Greece, the Republic of Rome, the Constitutional Monarchy of England or Sweden, or the Democratic Republic of the United States, they are charged with looking out for the long view of interests of its people.

The facts have yet to be fully revealed. In truth, the government was and is involved in many other failed alternative energy development endeavors over the last few years but Solyndra was the only one that was too large for the big name news sources to ignore. Billions is an accurate estimate. Solyndra was the only name I could think of at the moment. I don't understand what you mean by " conditioned principles" but I generally do not approve of any government subsidy of private industry. Their track record in that regard is dismal from a results standpoint and provides too much of an opportunity for cronyism.

You provide a list of endeavors that are too big and comprehensive for private industry to accomplish. I can think of many others - military or National parks system for example. These are not research in the sense that the funding of solar power technology is. There are actually a few examples where original research is too big to be carried out by private firms. One example is the Manhattan Project. Another is the Apollo project. However, most research, including alternate energy sources, is not that way in my opinion. My view of alternate energy sources for the future is very optimistic but I think it will be market forces and not government meddling and winner selection that will bring it about. The one worry I have is that the government will implement a tax structure that will make the investment not worthwhile. Don't forget that traditional electrical energy resources which dominate our society were mostly invented and developed by private industry. There are a few exceptions of which I am aware like TVA in the rural Southeast.

[Dave Sheldrake]

As an interesting aside, at one point at it's peak the Manhattan Project was using 20% of the entire US's electricity output to generate the materials required for just one bomb :)

cheers

Dave

[Greg Peterson]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you on private companies doing research. They, in fact, do the vast majority of worthwhile research and development. For example, virtually all modern drug development is funded by private research. Agricultural chemicals are all developed through private research. Modern building materials were all developed with private research. The semiconductors which make modern communication and computing technology possible were all developed through private company research. I could go on forever. It is more difficult to try to think of a product which was developed through original government funding. Government funded research has its place but it is small in comparison to private industry. Nowadays, it is popular to think of corporate America as evil but they were almost exclusively responsible for the products and prosperity we now enjoy. Do a serious study of the history of technology and you will see what I mean.

There is a fundamental difference between basic research and applied research. Private enterprise, like pharmaceuticals, conduct applied research. They are looking for a specific solution. They are not interested in pure, fundamental research.

As for your semiconductor reference, let's take a look at all the science that led up to that invention. Many scientists conducting pure research contributed to the creation of the semiconductor.

1. Michael Faraday’s 1833 report on negative temperature coefficient of resistance of silver sulfide. This is the first observation of any semiconductor property.
2. In 1839, French experimental physicist Edmond Becquerel reported the observation of photovoltage in the silver chloride coated platinum electrodes.
3. In 1873, English electrical engineer Willoughby Smith arrived at the discovery of photoconductivity of selenium.
4. In 1874, German physicist Ferdinand Braun discovered the rectification effect at the point of contact between metals and certain crystal materials. Braun demonstrated this semiconductor device to an audience at Leipzig on November 14, 1876.
5. Bengali polymath Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose was the first man to find a practical application semiconductors, the Galena detector. Bose Bose was awarded the first patent for a semiconductor device in the world.
6. Electrical engineer Greenleaf Whittier Pickard discovered that silicon crystals produced the best rectification properties and on August 20, 1906, he filed a U.S. patent on "Means for receiving intelligent communication by electric waves".
7. In 1915 American physicist Manson Benedicks discovered that a germanium crystal can be used to convert AC (alternating current) current into DC (direct current), i.e. the rectifying properties of germanium crystals.
8. In 1927 the Americans L.O. Grondahl and P.H. Geiger invented the copper oxide rectifier. The U.S. Patent 1640335 was issued on August 23rd, 1927, to Grondahl.

There are more scientists responsible for conducting basic research that led to the modern semiconductor. But the point is that applied research is predicated on basic research.

Bayer laboratories will only conduct research in matters they feel they can monetize, as it their fiduciary responsibility. They are not interested or obligated to increase our understanding of the natural world.

[Art Mann]

How many of the people you listed were employees of their government when their research was done? Very few I would expect. On the other hand, the type of research we are talking about here, which is the development of photovoltaic technology, is approximately 100% applied research - just the sort of work that private industry has done so incredibly well at over the last century.

[Scott Shepherd]

Bayer laboratories will only conduct research in matters they feel they can monetize, as it their fiduciary responsibility. They are not interested or obligated to increase our understanding of the natural world.

Good for them. It would be nice if my tax dollars were looked after in that manner. Why would you want to spend money on things that lose money?

[Jim Matthews]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you on private companies doing research. They, in fact, do the vast majority of worthwhile research and development. I could go on forever. It is more difficult to try to think of a product which was developed through original government funding. Government funded research has its place but it is small in comparison to private industry. Nowadays, it is popular to think of corporate America as evil but they were almost exclusively responsible for the products and prosperity we now enjoy. Do a serious study of the history of technology and you will see what I mean.

You're out of your depth, again.
Sahprize, sahprize!

http://blog.ted.com/2013/10/28/qa-mariana-mazzucato-governments-often-fuel-innovation/

Spare us the Libertarian theology. It's tiresome.

[Mel Fulks]

Just looked at the Ted blog. More preaching to the choir than anything else .The comments about solyndra are nothing but a coat of gloss. No mention of the fact that the law was subverted. Lenders were skeptical and inclined to turn it down.
They were told to approve it. Solar is no longer a new idea,if the venture had been solid they might have gotten the loan
through merit.

[Scott Shepherd]

Like I said earlier, if you want to cheery pick things, we can. The Ted blog doesn't say which key things were developed in what department. The internet, and all those fancy electronic things were invented in MILITARY research. It wasn't some group at the DMV brainstorming about new technology. It wasn't the Department of Transportation figuring out how to make electronic things that will end up being in some new technology 20 years from now.

If you want to use the Ted references, let's use some Ted speeches that talk about how worthless college has become and how it's a waste of time in many cases. Let's talk about how the people in higher education are paying themselves big fat salaries and getting tenure. Want to talk about corrupt oil? Let's talk about corrupt education. It's in the Ted lectures. How kids used to be told "You won't make it far in life without a college degree" and now they've turned that into "You won't go far without a Master's Degree".

[Mel Fulks]

Can't let this wind down without saying I'm sure Shawn's new system was expensive, legal,well intentioned, and sure we all hope it works well and is not hassled by any arbitrary future rules.

[Rick Potter]

Frederick,

To answer your question regarding the law about the tree blocking the sun...........I looked it up. In 1978 CA passed the 'Solar Shade Control Act'. Basically, it says that I am responsible for where I put my panels, if the neighbors have trees. Existing trees are grandfathered in, but assuming I install panels where there is no shade problem from the neighbors, they cannot plant new trees that block more than 10% of my solar panels between 10am and 2PM. If so, I can sue them with legal cause. Again...if the trees are there when I install the panels, the law does not apply. That's my problem for not locating them properly.

My neighbor has no offending trees, thus cannot plant them to annoy me.

Apparently, CA is one of few states to have this law, as they are encouraging solar. The law has been on the books for over 35 years.

Rick Potter

[Jim Matthews]

This thread has veered completely off the rails and shows real disregard for both the TOS and factual history.
It's a cheap ploy, to introduce a digression/diversion/steaming load into a discussion about a given topic.

It's eerily familiar to anyone that gets a steady diet of Fox "news".
Like I said - tiresome.


If you fall into the camp that thinks any and all Government funded research, subsidy or investment is wrong -
kindly turn in your cellphones, turn off your electicity, drive on gravel roads and stay out of hospitals.

No airports or railways for you hardy individualists!

After you've cut your internet wires, you can start buying your beef and produce out of the back of an open truck in the middle of nowhere.



FYI - The DOD and DARPA? They're Government funded - they don't hold bake sales to pay for Fairchild semiconductors, the GI Bill and GPS beacons.

If you don't think that Photovoltaic panels are following the same development arc of every other power generating scheme, you're mistaken.

[Jim Matthews]

Just looked at the Ted blog. More preaching to the choir than anything else .The comments about solyndra are nothing but a coat of gloss. No mention of the fact that the law was subverted. Lenders were skeptical and inclined to turn it down.
They were told to approve it. Solar is no longer a new idea,if the venture had been solid they might have gotten the loan
through merit.

I'm looking at this, and wondering two things :

What does this have to do with the original post?

How did I end up on one of the Fox News commentary sections?

A lot of "if they had..." "they shoulda woulda coulda known better..."
coming from Rear Echelon admirals without portfolio, lately.

[John Keeton]

If it wasn't political before, it certainly is now. The tenor of the thread has changed from an exchange of ideas and opinions to accusatory. Unfortunately, this has veered off the road and serves no further purpose.