| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
No doubt thing vary by region. Peak solar power would be earlier than 2-4 though. The simple fact that the utility has to buy excess power when it's not needed drives up their cost. The problem is that they have zero guarantee of being able to by that power from you, but the government will penalize them if they can't meet demand. They are stuck in the middle having to buy power at the whim of a supplier that they haven't contracted with and who has zero accountability when power isn't supplied. Because of this they still need capacity to supply 100% of the power, and they can't simply do that by flipping a switch and have the juice flow. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
They will have to estimate what the "supply" will be, no different than they do now with the demand. Power producers, by law, must also keep a certain amount of "spinning reserves". That means that the generators are turning but not producing power to allow for variations and provide the ability to "pick up the slack" if a generating unit somewhere on the grid goes down. I can not remember the amount but I think its something like 10-15% of estimated demand. ...but most likely the supply flowing back onto the grid will be ZERO because the solar will not be enough to make the meters run backwards...only slow them down at the customer's location. In general power generation is fairly inefficient. There is lots of potential generation capacity that is kept unused to provide reserves in case of emergencies. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, Federal gov't... I don't see any of that equating to direct federal gov't funding of solar power. I don't have the knowledge to debate airports or railroads, but you could argue that we all got land from the federal gov't at some level, but Dave, that didn't take money from our pockets; it was land that the nation owned that had yet to be settled and claimed. Nonetheless I oppose subsidizing any with federal taxes, then I'd oppose that. I don't see the point wrt the internet. A tax incentive maybe, but no money from the people for the purposes of a business. We need more oil, it's too expensive to go looking in deep water, so we offer some tax incentives to help spur that exploration. I think Exxon-Mobile paid a few dollars in taxes, no? The internet? All revenue earned in America is subject to income tax, internet or otherwise. There are also federal fees. Exactly what on the internet is not subject to taxation?  The lack of a pay per use federal fee is subsidizing? That's like saying that the roads that aren't tollways are being afforded federal subsidies. I don't see it being a subsidy. I see it as at least one remaining freedom from federal oppression. | ||
| Blake |
>>> The Internet has been granted tax and regulation exemptions That statement is very telling as to one's view of gov't and liberty. I'd say that "many goods and services are improperly taxed by the federal gov't under guise of the commerce clause." or... "The internet so far is one rare example of federal restraint in favor of freedom and free enterprise in America." | ||
| Blake |
Dave, My point about the snowy days was supposed to be about the lack of benefit to the overall grid. The peak power demand would be unaffected for such days and you'd have to charge the cars from the grid, so solar power charged electric car populations of any size in certain areas just don't make sense as far as benefiting the grid goes. Solar barely makes sense in areas with LOTS of sunshine. I'd sure like to be able to use it down here. I'd have to cut down too many of our mighty oak trees though. It's a catch-22. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Don't know if this has been mentioned but peak power for solar in not simply determined by the angle of the sun's rays, but also temperature. All things remaining the same, in general a solar panel will produce less electricity as the ambient temperature rises. This decline in efficiency of the panels unfortunately coincides with a higher peak electricity demand as more ACs are turned in the mid to late afternoons on the really hot days. It would be interesting to see when solar systems are most productive--not only time of day but season as well. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
Also, there are some weird things with the solar arrays like if you have a small shadow on any part of the array, it cuts down the production of the entire array by a large percentage. Don't ask me why. Blake is right, even in sunny areas (ie Central California) it makes little financial sense to go solar at this point. | ||
| Slaughter |
Unless you are a politician. | ||
| Hootowl |
Has something to do with unbalancing the cells that are electrically in parallel with each other. I read about it a while ago, but I remember very few details. Nanosolar matches individual cells in a panel to achieve max efficiency, so it must be important that they all produce the same amount of power. | ||
| Strokizator |
even in sunny areas (ie Central California) it makes little financial sense to go solar at this point I don't know, I'm here in Sanger,CA and after rebates/tax breaks I paid about $13K for my system. Last year my total electric bill (actual usage + meter charges) was about $240. You do the math. | ||
| Sifo |
So it cost $13K plus however much I was forced to kick in. Doing that math make me pretty damn angry. | ||
| Strokizator |
You weren't forced, the govt gave it to me. It's free! 30% of the cost was given back in the form of a tax credit. Tax credits are a tool used by the govt to encourage certain activities like drilling for oil (well they used to anyway), buying a Chevy Volt, buying new factory equipment and any number of other activities. 20% was a rebate from PG&E. Why they pay me to use less electricity is beyond me. If it makes you feel any better, I pay about $20K a year in federal income tax (I paid $126,000 one year). So maybe they're just giving me some of my own money back without dipping into your pocket. | ||
| Sifo |
There's no emoticon for how I'm feeling. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
I don't know, I'm here in Sanger,CA and after rebates/tax breaks I paid about $13K for my system. Last year my total electric bill (actual usage + meter charges) was about $240. You do the math. I am interested to hear your experience as it would be an apples to apples comparison (same area.) The magic question is how much your electric bill was before the solar went in. If it was $100 a month, then not a great investment. If it was $500 a month then it's a whole different ball of wax. I assume reality will be somewhere in between  If you don't mind, give me the low down on your sq footage, age of home etc. PM would be fine but I would think this might be interesting reading for others. | ||
| Sifo |
I averaged $68.89 per month over the past year assuming my bill goes to zero. That puts my ROI (not including the taxpayers portion) at almost 16 years. Even longer if you look at future value of money. Add in any potential repairs/maintenance to the system and it will push out even further. Still lots of unknown variables, but I think I'll just keep letting them bust up atoms for my electric needs. | ||
| Strokizator |
I'm at work but what I can tell you off the top of my head is that it's a 2000 sq.ft. ranch-style home built in 1979 on 2.5 acres. I've upgraded the windows and did some remodeling but it's still a cracker-box at heart. I'm on a well so I pay for every drop pumped to the surface and I like a lush lawn. My wife's home all day (or so I'm led to believe)and she cooks almost every night. We run the A/C in the summer and a hot tub in the winter. Prior to the solar we were on a level pay plan at around $300 a month for electric only. When they changed my meter last year in March they set everything (off-peak, partial peak, peak and total) at 50000 so I could monitor my usage. I made enough power to end the peak time usage year at 49956 which means that even with the A/C and the ovens on in the afternoon I still came out ahead. My total (sum of all 3) as of this weekend (13 months since install) is right around 52240. So subtract the 50000 it started at and you get 2240. Multiply that by $.09 and arrive at $200 and change. Since I have so much land available I didn't have to use my roof top. There are no trees shading the area or the house, for that matter. My decision to go solar had nothing to do about being "green". I remember the Gray Davis brown-out days and with Jerry Brown at the helm, the future looks bleak. If anything, rates in California are going to rise or according to Obama "necessarily skyrocket". Since I started all this in late 2009 PG&E has adjusted the rate schedule and I think homeowners now pay a little less and businesses more. It's just me and the wife with no kids at home. We don't have a pool so your mileage may vary. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
When they changed my meter last year in March they set everything (off-peak, partial peak, peak and total) at 50000 so I could monitor my usage. I made enough power to end the peak time usage year at 49956 which means that even with the A/C and the ovens on in the afternoon I still came out ahead. I understood everything except this. Can you please explain further? I am interested because I just bought a bigger house with pool and I know the energy bill is going to be ugly. At this point, I will go thru this summer to set a baseline energy usage and let the back account recharge a bit, perhaps looking at options during the winter. Unfortunately, my roof doesn't allow for optimum solar exposure though. So just looking at your ROI, only looking at your initial investment cost, is about 4 years? That's way less than I would have guessed. | ||
| Blake |
Very interesting information. >>> My total (sum of all 3) as of this weekend (13 months since install) is right around 52240. Do you mean 152,240 KWH or is that an average of the three? If the incentives and subsidies were not available, how much would the system have cost, installation included? Harlan, I'm pretty sure they can make it work on just about any roof, as long as there is sun. They just build a platform at the desired orientation, or often, a bunch of mini platforms. | ||
| Blake |
>>> So subtract the 50000 it started at and you get 2240. Multiply that by $.09 and arrive at $200 and change Are you saying that your electrical rate including fees and taxes and other ancillary charges is only $0.09/KWH in California? That's cheaper than Dallas, Texas! | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I saw that .09 per KWH and said to myself thats a DAMN good rate....even for a base rate. (iirc) In Tallahassee we are at .13 plus taxes and fees. If you opt into the "nights and weekend" plan (lower rate for off peak, higher for on peak) we are at .07 off peak and .21 on peak. I do the nights and weekends plan and save between $30-$50 per month. About 85% of my usage is offpeak. | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm in an unregulated area of Texas, and I'm paying 9.375 cents base and 10.12 cents with taxes and fees. | ||
| Hootowl |
That's a flat rate, doesn't depend on time of day. | ||
| Strokizator |
Here's a few answers: Since my meter can run forward and backwards, it was set @ 50000 when installed - half way between 0 and 99999. Anything above 50000 is plus (using more than produced) and anything below is minus (produced more than I used). The meter is set up for time-of-day usage (E6) instead of flat rate. That way I can take advantage of the fact that my panels produce the most power when electricity it at it highest cost. BTW, "flat rate" is also a misnomer as it too is tiered and quickly goes from 12¢ to 40¢. My "peak time" meter reads 49954 which means that between the hours of 1pm and 7pm between May & Oct I actually produced 46kWh's more than I consumed (50000 - 49954). Between Oct & May there is no "peak time" only "partial" and off. During the day, if I produce more than I consume then the meter spins backwards for those hours. As of today, my meter reads: #4 total - 52208 #5 peak - 49954 (@ 32.7¢) #9 partial- 50465 (@ 15.3¢) #13 off pk - 51789 (@ 8.9¢) These means I'm @ -46 during peak, +465 at partial and +1789 during off peak for a total of 2208 for 13 months since the new meter install. A quick calc shows my charges to be about $215 for the last 13 months plus the meter charge of something like $12 a month. For more info on E6 time-of-use meters read this: http://tinyurl.com/6zzjjl5 I confess that I was confused when I first started this. I'll also admit that my situation is unique (I live in California which is in a perpetual energy crisis and my house is ideally located for solar panels) and I don't profess that everyone needs to go solar or use a windmill or reduce your carbon footprint. My motives were strictly monetary and it just made fiscal sense to me. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
My motives were strictly monetary and it just made fiscal sense to me. Which, to me, is the best reason to do it. Looking back I sorely wish that I'd looked into it when the rebates were at their highest. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
My motives were strictly monetary and it just made fiscal sense to me. That makes sense to me as well. So how many panels do you have out there? Also, can we assume if you were paying $300/mo for power, your annual electricity bill was roughly $3,600/yr? From $3,600 to $200+. Not too shabby. | ||
| Strokizator |
The system I have uses 24 panels rated 175 watts each for 4200 rated output and cost right at $25,000. I wanted to go to a 5000 watt system but there was no economy of scale and it would have cost me $3000 out of my pocket to eliminate that last $200 yearly bill. Like I said this was all about the money. The panels are guaranteed to produce 80% of rated capacity 20 years from now. The inverter will have to be replaced before then at a cost of around $3000. One downside is that in the event of a black-out, my solar system shuts down. This prevents me from sending power into the grid and killing a utility worker who thinks the power has been shut-off. There are approved methods of circumventing this but an automatic transfer switch and other necessary equipment are not worth the investment. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Stroke, is the brownout/blackout shutoff thingie-ma-bobber (highly technical term there) something the state put in? Is there something that you can put in place to cut yourself off from "the grid" if you wanted to? Something like what folks that have whole home generators use around here when hurricanes knock the power off. That way you can still use the power you produce but it doesn't flow out to the rest of the electric grid. I'm borderline ignorant about the technical side of electricity, in general (by choice). It is one of the few things that actually scares me..... you cant see it, hear it, or smell it; but if you touch it, it can kill you in an instant. With that being the case, I avoid messing with it whenever possible. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Awww...Reddy Kilowatt is a FRIENDLY guy.  | ||
| Strokizator |
The inverter, which takes DC voltage from the panels and converts it to AC, has to sense incoming voltage from the grid before it will allow power from the panels to be released. I am sure this is a universal safety feature across the country. The people with back-up generators must have some form of transfer switch that automatically disconnects them from the grid when the genset is running. I didn't want to have a stand alone system as the expense is quite high. I would need a way to store power for use at night and on stormy days. I look at the utility company as my "partner" in supplying my house with energy and they aren't costing me much for this convenience. You guys have pretty much exhausted my knowledge of all things electrical. I'm a sprinkler guy, not an electrician. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Thanks...and you have more knowledge than I. I'd rather have to catch all manner of poisonous/dangerous animals or work at crazy heights than have to work with electricity for a living. |
