Sign in to follow this  
Mrleft8

Solar update

Recommended Posts

It's been a while, and I can't remember what thread I'd hijacked to talk about our solar array....

 Now that the season has changed from deep winter, to early/mid spring, the change has been dramatic.

 We're now generating on a regular basis over 100Kwh per day, while using about 8-12Kwh per night.

 On a seriously cloudy day, with rain, and etc, we generated very little. Tomorrow is forecast to be one of those days. But today, partly cloudy, and hot as hell, we have generated 114Kwh and the day isn't over yet..... I will see what the take is tomorrow with bad weather....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a huge number of Kilowatt hours for a domestic situation especially bearing in mind that you are just past the equinox and still have the summer months to come...... HM panels have you got and what do they rate?

What do you do with all the surplus power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He built a pretty big system, and sells surplus back.

L8, Did you have any issues w/ pine needles, beercans, leaves, birdshit, and the like on your panels over the winter ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

He built a pretty big system, and sells surplus back.

L8, Did you have any issues w/ pine needles, beercans, leaves, birdshit, and the like on your panels over the winter ?

Correct. 93 panels @ I think something like 13Kw per panel.... It comes out to about 50 Kw total when you figure in phony claims, and inefficiency.

 No problem with Pine needles, beer cans, leaves or bird shit. The power co. pays me back at a rate of about 1/4 what I pay them.... It's Florida, the Gunshine state... If I'd installed a coal fired generator I'd probably be up for election for Senator..... But solar? I must be a commie....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are OK sucking off ....

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solarpanels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

 
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If you are OK sucking off ....

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solarpanels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

 

Works for me. Sucks to be you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Works for me. Sucks to be you.

sucking off the payerz...don't you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this L8.

Kinda makes for a good situation for an electric car, use up some of that surplus power instead of almost giving it away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, floating dutchman said:

Thanks for posting this L8.

Kinda makes for a good situation for an electric car, use up some of that surplus power instead of almost giving it away.  

The storage batteries, and the tax I'd pay on them in Florida doesn't make them viable unless I was building new, and totally off the grid.

Florida is one of the most solar unfriendly states, thanks to the deep pockets of Duke Energy, and Seminole Electric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The storage batteries, and the tax I'd pay on them in Florida doesn't make them viable unless I was building new, and totally off the grid.

Florida is one of the most solar unfriendly states, thanks to the deep pockets of Duke Energy, and Seminole Electric.

What kind of tax?  just sales tax or some sort of usage tax?

I not suggesting you should purchase an electric car but this does make the electric car / solar array look like a good combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, floating dutchman said:

What kind of tax?  just sales tax or some sort of usage tax?

I not suggesting you should purchase an electric car but this does make the electric car / solar array look like a good combination.

Sales tax is actually (theoretically, but not in fact) waived, but there's the fee for having a large bank of potentially hazardous material, and the basic cost of the batteries is quite substantial. Having a 17Kw propane backup generator, I don't really need the batteries, and at this point their efficiency, and life span isn't all that great. In a cooler climate they might be more economical, but in this near tropical zone (Except for the 3 weeks it goes arctic) batteries don't do well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If you are OK sucking off ....

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solarpanels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

 

The latest turbines are tall enough that they achieve capacities averaging 42.5%. The next gen offshore turbines from GE and others are 50% taller/larger and will achieve 63% capacity. 

When you add storage to solar, you also greatly increase its utilization. 

Argue for the value of nuclear if you wish but let's be honest about the performance of wind and solar. Also, be sure to account for all the externalized costs of waste storage and management with nuclear, which aren't anywhere near fully factored into the cost of nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If every house had a small solar array on it's roof, there would be almost no need for nuclear or coal powered plants..... How do you think that would make the shareholders of Duke Energy feel?....

 The fact that I feed back over 10 times what I use per day, right now makes these guys giddy...... Because they sell to my neighbors what I send to them and they don't spend a penny on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solarpanels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

You must have shares in or be on the payroll of a nuclear power company.

if you covered every suitable rooftop, and covered every on grade car park,  freeway, railway etc with panels and or turbines etc, you would not need any more open land nor any extra infrastructure. And because it is all so widespread, less transmission loss as well, because a lot of the power would be produced locally. Power investment by many, not just a few.

If the national grid was (is?) coast to coast and shared/managed, the time difference also helps to balance out peak/base load problems.

The great challenge is how to store power. Pumped hydro has the most potential. In Australia, researchers have recognised over 3,000 potential sites with over 400 metres head. Even some of the coal pits are now so large and deep, they are becoming viable as well. And some are right next door to an existing power station. The same must be the case in US, you have a lot more and a lot higher sites than Australia.

What is needed is positive constructive strategic thinking, not just short term monopolistic profit control by a few to the future detriment of the planet. Sooner or later, nuclear (and coal) must end up in tears with no way back.

What legacy do you want to pass on to future generations?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sidecar said:

You must have shares in or be on the payroll of a nuclear power company.

if you covered every suitable rooftop, and covered every on grade car park,  freeway, railway etc with panels and or turbines etc, you would not need any more open land nor any extra infrastructure. And because it is all so widespread, less transmission loss as well, because a lot of the power would be produced locally. Power investment by many, not just a few.

If the national grid was (is?) coast to coast and shared/managed, the time difference also helps to balance out peak/base load problems.

The great challenge is how to store power. Pumped hydro has the most potential. In Australia, researchers have recognised over 3,000 potential sites with over 400 metres head. Even some of the coal pits are now so large and deep, they are becoming viable as well. And some are right next door to an existing power station. The same must be the case in US, you have a lot more and a lot higher sites than Australia.

What is needed is positive constructive strategic thinking, not just monopolistic profit control by a few to the future detriment of the planet. Sooner or later, nuclear (and coal) must end up in tears with no way back.

What legacy do you want to pass on to future generations?

 

 

it simply does not work....or the greedy evil capitalists would have been all over it like a prog on Trump....it does NOT work...other than a middle school science

project...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

it simply does not work....or the greedy evil capitalists would have been all over it like a prog on Trump....it does NOT work...other than a middle school science

project...

You mean it is too hard and they are too lazy and it is easier to persuade short term politicians to do as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

You mean it is too hard and they are too lazy and it is easier to persuade short term politicians to do as they say.

It's a question of where the profit lies..... People like Biff..... Er Bluey won't admit that it's viable until their clients can make massive profits from it. Fuck the world, I want a few more Beemers in the shed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sidecar said:

You mean it is too hard and they are too lazy and it is easier to persuade short term politicians to do as they say.

I truly wish it was the solution....but it is not...it simply is not cost effective..by any measure or extrapolation ...other than feel good eco mastruabation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I truly wish it was the solution....but it is not...it simply is not cost effective..by any measure or extrapolation ...other than feel good eco mastruabation 

It? It? What is this “It” you are talking about? There will not be one solution to this global problem. There will be many and varied to suit local circumstances and geography.

“It” solutions are the mindset of monopolists who put greed and control before social/global responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I truly wish it was the solution....but it is not...it simply is not cost effective..by any measure or extrapolation ...other than feel good eco mastruabation 

Listen closely.

 This thread is to inform people of the results of my investment in solar energy generation. It is not a thread for you to shit in, on or around. OK? Get the fuck off of my thread and start your own if you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Listen closely.

 This thread is to inform people of the results of my investment in solar energy generation. It is not a thread for you to shit in, on or around. OK? Get the fuck off of my thread and start your own if you want to.

Apologies for my contribution to the thread drift.... FWIW, I am solar self sufficient/surplus for power also, and will be going off grid with micro pumped hydro and desalination for extra fresh water when the time is right...

if I reckon I can do it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Listen closely.

 This thread is to inform people of the results of my investment in solar energy generation. It is not a thread for you to shit in, on or around. OK? Get the fuck off of my thread and start your own if you want to.

Your “investment is SUBSIDIZED.... with my tax dollars 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sidecar said:

Apologies for my contribution to the thread drift.... FWIW, I am solar self sufficient/surplus for power also, and will be going off grid with micro pumped hydro and desalination for extra fresh water when the time is right...

if I reckon I can do it......

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not you. You are a positive contributor.

 Desal seems to be a pretty obvious necessity for many areas now, and in the near future.

 If people had thought seriously about it in the 1970s, when some people started raising concerns, It might be a very significant supply in many areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Your “investment is SUBSIDIZED.... with my tax dollars 

For good reason because the people who you have elected and employ in the public service have realised that there has to be a change of ways and are providing inducement to do it....... Get on board, sounds like a plan. Don’t miss out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Your “investment is SUBSIDIZED.... with my tax dollars 

No, it is not.  If you don't understand "don't shit in, on my thread" perhaps you need a little time out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H20 missed the part where you said the energy companies take your excess and sell it for 3x what the pay for it.

As a customer paying that 3x, he's obviously not bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

H20 missed the part where you said the energy companies take your excess and sell it for 3x what the pay for it.

As a customer paying that 3x, he's obviously not bright.

If you want to use solar to live off the grid fine, but it is a scam otherwise. Energy companies are FORCED to "buy" what the inefficient not cost effective solar panels put into the grid. "Sell 3 times as much" ...yeah well the energy companies have to build and maintain the grid....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Correct. 93 panels @ I think something like 13Kw per panel.... It comes out to about 50 Kw total when you figure in phony claims, and inefficiency.

 No problem with Pine needles, beer cans, leaves or bird shit. The power co. pays me back at a rate of about 1/4 what I pay them.... It's Florida, the Gunshine state... If I'd installed a coal fired generator I'd probably be up for election for Senator..... But solar? I must be a commie....

Hey, L8, I was asking the same legit question I asked about the SCAR,,

How does the machine work for you after all the "phony claims & inefficiencies"  have been filtered & flushed by realities.

I had remembered from the other thread the power co. was ripping you off re/buyback.

In point of fact I admire that you showed stones enough to make a decision & put yer money down,

, and was NOT peeing in yer Cheerios.

 

;)  , besides, if you were a True Spiritual Commie, you would simply run extension cord and plug neighbor into your machine. 

1)  power co. doesn't get your supply to re$ell

2) power co. doesn't get your neighbor $ either.

 

If you were even a little bit of an evil money grubbing capitalist, you could sell to neighbor for 10% LESS than power co.

1) neighbor tells everyone you are a Prince Among Men.

2)  you would be smoking expensive bootleg Cuban stogies, while driving some exotic car around town with a pornstar in passenger seat..

 

:) think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Hey, L8, I was asking the same legit question I asked about the SCAR,,

How does the machine work for you after all the "phony claims & inefficiencies"  have been filtered & flushed by realities.

I had remembered from the other thread the power co. was ripping you off re/buyback.

In point of fact I admire that you showed stones enough to make a decision & put yer money down,

, and was NOT peeing in yer Cheerios.

 

;)  , besides, if you were a True Spiritual Commie, you would simply run extension cord and plug neighbor into your machine. 

1)  power co. doesn't get your supply to re$ell

2) power co. doesn't get your neighbor $ either.

 

If you were even a little bit of an evil money grubbing capitalist, you could sell to neighbor for 10% LESS than power co.

1) neighbor tells everyone you are a Prince Among Men.

2)  you would be smoking expensive bootleg Cuban stogies, while driving some exotic car around town with a pornstar in passenger seat..

 

:) think about it.

Several good points there!

Last month's bill was $0, with a $44 "credit". That includes the two other meters on the property. One meter is the electricity for the irrigation well pump, the other used to be for the doublewide and the shop. Now it just powers the shop. All 3 meters are billed separately, but combined on one bill. The minimum amount for each meter is $29.99 (Line service charge, and state taxes), so in essence the solar array produced $134 more than we used..... At the severely discounted sell back price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pornstars, finally this thread has some value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why such a low output?  you have 50kw (!) of panels, but only get 100kw of power on a grid tie?  My off grid house will collect 12kw on a nominal 3kw of panels......and that is pumping into batteries (lowering my output as the batteries charge and begin to fill).

Also, how long until you return your investment in the panels?  That always seems to be the problem....what people don't realize is that panels are horribly ineffecient and are one of the most expensive forms of electricity....and they become even LESS efficient when they get hot.  I suspect that may explain the low yield on your current panel load?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically our roi is 8 years, but I'm guessing closer to 10. These are Hyundai panels that are "supposed" to be 75-80% efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Theoretically our roi is 8 years, but I'm guessing closer to 10. These are Hyundai panels that are "supposed" to be 75-80% efficient.

Key word... theoretical....solar is fine for patio lighting... and off grid expiriments even inside city limits.... but it is a miserable idea otherwise. Think of it like this.... nobody on the face of the earth had electricity from anything other than solar.... the along came nuke  or fossil fuel energy options..... Lol ....bag holders clinging to their solar panels.... used solar panels cheap !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you didn’t understand my friend. Let me make it clear. Don’t shit on the mans thread, or you’ll get some time out. Capiche?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.....I wasn’t aware that the OP actually owned a thread. I find the debate and information/perspectives from all contributors interesting so far. Dissent or contrary views are not a bad thing. It’s more information. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put in a 5kv system 6 years ago. It has just payed itself off and we get 4 months of free electricity a year.

Well worth the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd I wish it worked.... I spent thousands $$$$$ really $$$$$ trying to make it work offshore for minimal power consumption 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If you want to use solar to live off the grid fine, but it is a scam otherwise. Energy companies are FORCED to "buy" what the inefficient not cost effective solar panels put into the grid. "Sell 3 times as much" ...yeah well the energy companies have to build and maintain the grid....

You do realise all customers,  including the op pay a service cost? In the op's case  thats  about 90 bucks a month.

The energy companies aren't building and maintaining the grid for cost.

 

You're not very bright  are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

You do realise all customers,  including the op pay a service cost? In the op's case  thats  about 90 bucks a month.

The energy companies aren't building and maintaining the grid for cost.

 

You're not very bright  are you?

Solar is a feel good parasite.... when atttached to the grid.... if you really want to find out for yourself go solar off the grid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Solar is a feel good parasite.... when atttached to the grid.... if you really want to find out for yourself go solar off the grid

The question. Is. Does it work for the OP? Sounds like yes. He didn't get on here to promote or explain how an off grid system work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chinabald said:

The question. Is. Does it work for the OP? Sounds like yes. He didn't get on here to promote or explain how an off grid system work. 

Yeah...in a personal shortsighted way it works for him...his power bills are down....solar simply comes up short on any scale other than patio lights and trickle charge on your boat while it sits at the dock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting observation that unless everybody "goes off the grid", that the grid - which requires maintenance and repairs - which is supported by customer charges is not being supported by folks who are handling their needs via solar (or any other alternate form of energy generation). It does bring up the question how that would be supported. Gas taxes repair roads, higher mileage cars use less gas thus less gas tax. I can think of any number of similar situations where fees/charges support the infrastructure we all depend on but less revenue will challenge that infrastructure financing model. I have to say that if I had room or a suitable roof structure I likely would have some solar system to reduce or eliminate my costs and enhance my energy independence. But the long term results of those decisions are interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Yeah...in a personal shortsighted way it works for him...his power bills are down....solar simply comes up short on any scale other than patio lights and trickle charge on your boat while it sits at the dock

You make a sarcastic comment about his "personal shortsighted way" but then post how it's not good in your own personal shortsighted way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chinabald said:

You make a sarcastic comment about his "personal shortsighted way" but then post how it's not good in your own personal shortsighted way. 

I am serious ...not sarcastic....it simply is not cost effective unless propped up with either money in your pocket from mine....or a kick in the ass from fossil /nuclear fuel....I really ..really wish it worked 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

it simply does not work....or the greedy evil capitalists would have been all over it like a prog on Trump....it does NOT work...other than a middle school science

project...

The capitalists are all over it. Look at new capacity added in wind/solar versus coal/NG/nuclear in the last few years. Yes, there are subsidies for solar. How much of our military budget subsidizes oil? How much are we subsidizing NG by ignoring the effects of groundwater pollution, methane leakage, and CO2 output into the atmosphere? How much are we subsidizing nuclear by ignoring the cost of safe spent fuel disposal? Regardless, solar and wind will soon be without subsidies because they'll be cost competitive even without them. BTW, even in ridiculously-subsidized WA state I pay a monthly connection charge for my solar to support grid maintenance even as my feedback to the local grid reduces the need for maintenance and expansion of the long distance transmission lines. Happy to do it, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IStream said:

The capitalists are all over it. Look at new capacity added in wind/solar versus coal/NG/nuclear in the last few years. Yes, there are subsidies for solar. How much of our military budget subsidizes oil? How much are we subsidizing NG by ignoring the effects of groundwater pollution, methane leakage, and CO2 output into the atmosphere? How much are we subsidizing nuclear by ignoring the cost of safe spent fuel disposal? Regardless, solar and wind will soon be without subsidies because they'll be cost competitive even without them. BTW, even in ridiculously-subsidized WA state I pay a monthly connection charge for my solar to support grid maintenance even as my feedback to the local grid reduces the need for maintenance and expansion of the long distance transmission lines. Happy to do it, too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IStream said:

Well, that was productive.

about as solar into the grid.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today (Sunday) it was pouring rain with heavy clouds all day. Not only is it a bad collection day, but because it was stormy out, both my wife and I were inside most of the day, with the TV on, the computer on, the laundry running, including ironing clothes, and lots of lights on.

 All that said, we produced 17Kwh more than we used.

 When I said that on a sunny day at this time of year we're producing 113Kwh, I mean that we are producing that much more than we are using. When it's dry (as it has been for the last 3+ months) I use the irrigation a lot. Well pumps are energy hogs. When I crank up the Dial-arc welder the lights flicker, but we don't see it on the electric bill.

 So for the nuke and coal proponents out there, (and I know there's one still on this thread because someone quoted him) show me how this isn't a win/win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While chiefly British, this is an interesting read on what the possibilities could be of adding a lot of "alternative energy" sources up.  For the UK, looks like a no-go.

One question the author asks early on is "what is your objective?"  If it is eliminating greenhouse gases, nuclear is a very viable option.

 

Linky

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had been building new, instead of adding solar panels to an existing structure, I would have taken a serious look at Geo-thermal heat pump technology, but the cost of retro-fitting an existing structure, and the amount of landscaping work made it economically in-viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

Today (Sunday) it was pouring rain with heavy clouds all day. Not only is it a bad collection day, but because it was stormy out, both my wife and I were inside most of the day, with the TV on, the computer on, the laundry running, including ironing clothes, and lots of lights on.

 All that said, we produced 17Kwh more than we used.

 When I said that on a sunny day at this time of year we're producing 113Kwh, I mean that we are producing that much more than we are using. When it's dry (as it has been for the last 3+ months) I use the irrigation a lot. Well pumps are energy hogs. When I crank up the Dial-arc welder the lights flicker, but we don't see it on the electric bill.

 So for the nuke and coal proponents out there, (and I know there's one still on this thread because someone quoted him) show me how this isn't a win/win.

So I gather you have someone here in the debate on ignore but you see their posts by others quoting, and your going to ask a question of that person you have on ignore?

You crack me up Lefty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 5:41 PM, SailBlueH2O said:

If you are OK sucking off ....

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solarpanels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

 

Wait though, solar power is way more valuable than nuclear power. First off, it generates power exactly when you need it, when the sun is high, peak-loading. And to the contrary, nuclear power is baseload, it generates power even when you don't want it, because you can't dial it back at night too well. So when you don't need the power, it's increasingly common to see negative index pricing, where the nuclear plant operators either have to give away their power or even pay to have the power removed from their feed lines.

Second, solar power is dirt cheap. There are no phase losses since the current is generated directly from the photovoltaics, and once the panels are set up, the maintenance and engineering is so minimal that it's nearly free. These relatively large solar plants operate with only a single part-time technician just to check things and occasionally clean off the panels. A nuclear plant needs a full crew of engineers and technicians and constant recertification. The Homeland Security costs of a nuclear plant are large, and nonexistent for a solar plant.

Third, the downstream cost of a solar plant is negative, the glass, copper, hardware and components of a solar plant have positive value after it no longer is worthwhile to keep it running. The downstream cost of a nuclear plant is enormous ... a huge chunk of our DOE tax dollars simply go to managing legacy nuclear waste. There is still nuclear waste from the 1970s that are awaiting long-term storage.

The fallacy is that the land that solar uses is worth something ... it often is worth nothing. For instance, a rooftop array uses space that would otherwise have no value. Ground mount panels on the outskirts of usable land still allow grazing, still allow cultivation, the ground below a ground-mount is still useful. In contrast, the ground below and around a nuclear reactor is often a Superfund site. We have community solar arrays near our house, the cattle don't seem to care that they are there. And even when it's fenced off, the land only has marginal value ... we can get about one-head per ten acres in non-irrigated land in our area. A one-megawatt PV install requires two acres, that has a marginal value of about one-fifth of a grazed cow. And given that cows and goats do graze the sites to keep the grass down, the lost value is negligible.

Finally -- and this is the biggie -- your analysis ignores the reality that nuclear plants, gas plants and coal plants need lots of water to dump the heat and operate the heat engines. Power is the largest pull of freshwater in the country, even more than agricultural. You can't just site a nuclear plants or any gas turbine in shitty land, it needs access to sufficient flowing water. But solar PV and wind? Meh, drop them wherever the fuck you want, as long as there is sun/wind, a grid tie and some kind of dirt access road.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, IStream said:

The capitalists are all over it. Look at new capacity added in wind/solar versus coal/NG/nuclear in the last few years. Yes, there are subsidies for solar. How much of our military budget subsidizes oil? How much are we subsidizing NG by ignoring the effects of groundwater pollution, methane leakage, and CO2 output into the atmosphere? How much are we subsidizing nuclear by ignoring the cost of safe spent fuel disposal? Regardless, solar and wind will soon be without subsidies because they'll be cost competitive even without them. BTW, even in ridiculously-subsidized WA state I pay a monthly connection charge for my solar to support grid maintenance even as my feedback to the local grid reduces the need for maintenance and expansion of the long distance transmission lines. Happy to do it, too. 

Yep, solar and wind receive some of the lowest full-cycle subsidies of any power. Nuclear and coal are the highest ... nuclear in the form of massive subsidies for Homeland Security and legacy nuclear waste, and coal for the approximately $10 billion/year in public health costs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Solar is a feel good parasite.... when atttached to the grid.... if you really want to find out for yourself go solar off the grid

It's not a parasite ... solar is peak-load power, and the grid companies pay wholesale for it, yet sell it at peak pricing. As the power companies move away from generating power and increasingly become grid operators, they'll make the most profit from solar, compressed air energy storage, battery storage and pumped power storage ... it's the nature of selling power at peak pricing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

Put in a 5kv system 6 years ago. It has just payed itself off and we get 4 months of free electricity a year.

Well worth the money.

We have a 6 kW system on our roof, but we're not green in the slightest. My Alabama wife likes to keep the house at 73 or 74 degrees in the winter, wouldn't turn off a light to save her soul, and I have a jacuzzi in the backyard that sucks down the power like a vicar on Tuesday.

But even with all of that, we actually have negative power use several months of the year, and our new, energy-efficient home actually uses less power than a lot of a greenies in their older homes with them shivering at 60-degree thermostat settings. That rooftop system kicks out power with no complaints and zero maintenance since it was installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 24 panel 6 Kw system at ~ 43 degrees south and we generate ~ 7,000 Kw pa which covers all our own usage and generates a small export power profit after meter/grid connection fees over a year. They have been up 8 years and I have regularly checked but never touched or even cleaned them, they seem to be operating with the same efficiency as day one.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

We have a 6 kW system on our roof, but we're not green in the slightest. My Alabama wife likes to keep the house at 73 or 74 degrees in the winter, wouldn't turn off a light to save her soul, and I have a jacuzzi in the backyard that sucks down the power like a vicar on Tuesday.

But even with all of that, we actually have negative power use several months of the year, and our new, energy-efficient home actually uses less power than a lot of a greenies in their older homes with them shivering at 60-degree thermostat settings. That rooftop system kicks out power with no complaints and zero maintenance since it was installed.

We have one of those older houses. As well, I live with a woman who feels the cold but seems to have been born on a tent, doesn't like window coverings and doesn't realise lights can be turned off.

Our house requires about 5kw a day to keep warm during winter. That can be improved upon. ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this might help clear the issue a bit for SoCal 

California Net Metering: Everything You Need to Know About NEM 2.0

Reading Time: 6 minutes

California net metering 2.0 overview

Net metering in California is part of what makes the Golden State the undisputed leader for solar in the country. In fact, California saw 20,163 megawatts (MW) of solar installed as of the end of 2016, more than five times as much as #2 state North Carolina.

 

What is California’s net energy metering policy?

Homeowners and businesses can use California’s net metering to receive bill credits for the excess electricity that their solar panels produce, as long as the system is less than 1,000 kilowatts (1 MW). With the help of net metering in CA, electric utility customers who install solar typically save tens of thousands of dollars on their electricity costs over the lifetime of their solar panels. 

California’s first net metering policy set a “cap” for the three investor-owned utilities in the state: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE). Total solar installations in each utility’s territory were capped at five percent of total peak electricity demand. As a result of explosive solar growth in the Golden State, all three utilities were approaching their caps by the end of 2015. To ensure that solar would continue to succeed, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) created a next-generation program known as “Net Metering 2.0” (NEM 2.0) that extends California net metering benefits for years to come.

NEM 2.0: California’s new net metering policy

The original policy for net metering in California is very simple: for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of solar electricity you feed into the grid, you get a bill credit for one kWh of utility-generated electricity. When your solar panels produce more than you need, you “bank” the excess to use when your panels don’t produce enough to meet your monthly use. If your system is the right size, net metering makes it possible for you to cover your electricity use for the entire year with solar.

Net Metering 2.0 makes a few minor changes to California’s original net metering policy, but it preserves the key element that makes solar economical for California residents: retail rate bill credits. Homeowners and businesses that enroll in NEM 2.0 will still receive per-kWh credits for their solar electricity that are equal to the value of a kWh of utility electricity. This means that the economics of solar are still very favorable under NEM 2.0.

In addition to preserving retail rate bill credits, the new California net metering program also prohibits many fixed charges for residential customers, including demand charges, grid access charges, installed capacity fees, and standby fees. NEM 2.0 will run until 2019, at which point the CPUC will look at establishing a new program that is designed to account for the benefits of solar in different locations and at different times.

There are three main differences between the original California net metering policy and Net Metering 2.0: time-of-use rates, interconnection fees, and non-bypassable charges. The California Solar Energy Industries Association (CalSEIA) estimates that the combined impact of these changes will be approximately $10/month compared to the original policy.



environmental solar benefits graphic


 

Time-of-use (TOU) rates 

TOU rates are designed to align your electricity costs with demand across the electric grid. Electricity is most expensive at times of high demand, like late afternoon and early evening, which means that your utility will charge you more per kWh during those “peak hours.” It also means that net metering credits will be worth more for electricity you send back to the grid during peak hours.

Under NEM 2.0, every property owner who installs a solar energy system will automatically be switched to TOU rates for their electric bills. What you pay per kWh will depend on your utility. As of November 2016, PG&E, SCE and SDG&E are still developing their solar TOU rate schedules.

Solar panel systems operating under NEM 2.0 can be just as economical as traditional net metering with the right system design. In general, TOU rates are highest in the afternoon and evening during the summer, and lowest during nights and weekends in the winter. Property owners with solar systems on NEM 2.0 can maximize net metering credits by locating panels on the west side of the roof so that they capture the late afternoon sun. (Learn more about how roof orientation can impact your solar savings.)

Interconnection fee

Before your solar PV system can send electricity back to the grid, a representative from your city or town will come to your property to inspect the system and sign off on the installation. Under NEM 2.0, residential and small commercial system owners pay a small one-time “interconnection fee” to connect their solar panels to the electric grid. For SDG&E customers, the fee is $132, and PG&E customers will pay $145.

Non-bypassable charges

Non-bypassable charges (NBCs) are per-kilowatt hour charges that are built into utility electric rates. They add up to approximately 2-3 cents per kWh and go towards funding energy efficiency, low-income customer assistance, and other related programs.

In the original net metering policy, system owners did not have to pay NBCs on the electricity that they bought from the utility on a month-to-month basis. Under NEM 2.0, new system owners will have to pay NBCs, but only for the kWh of electricity delivered by the utility. None of the solar electricity generated and used at home will be subject to NBCs.

SDG&E, PG&E, and SCE net metering in California

NEM 2.0 enrollment for PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E customers starts after each utility reaches its original net metering cap or by July 1, 2017 – whichever happens first. As of January 2018, the status for each utility is as follows:

  • SDG&E: Net metering reached its cap in the summer of 2016, which means that new San Diego solar system owners are currently enrolling in net metering 2.0.
  • PG&E: PG&E reached its net metering cap on December 15, 2016. All new PG&E solar customers are being enrolled in NEM 2.0.
  • SCE: The original SCE net metering program reached its cap in summer 2017, and all new solar customers will enroll in NEM 2.0.

Utility customers who installed solar under the original net metering policy will be “grandfathered” in for 20 years from their original enrollment date. After that point, they will also move to NEM 2.0.

Resources for net metering in California 

About net metering in California

Net metering policies: PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE

 

Three Tips for Solar Shoppers

  1. Homeowners who get multiple quotes save 10% or more

    As with any big ticket purchase, shopping for a solar panel installation takes a lot of research and consideration, including a thorough review of the companies in your area. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recommended that consumers compare as many solar options as possible to avoid paying inflated prices offered by the large installers in the solar industry.

    To find the smaller contractors that typically offer lower prices, you’ll need to use an installer network like EnergySage. You can receive free quotes from vetted installers local to you when you register your property on our Solar Marketplace – homeowners who get 3 or more quotes can expect to save $5,000 to $10,000 on their solar panel installation.

  2. The biggest installers typically don’t offer the best price

    The bigger isn’t always better mantra is one of the main reasons we strongly encourage homeowners to consider all of their solar options, not just the brands large enough to pay for the most advertising. A recent report by the U.S. government found that large installers are $2,000 to $5,000 more expensive than small solar companies. If you have offers from some of the big installers in solar, make sure you compare those bids with quotes from local installers to ensure you don’t overpay for solar.

  3. Comparing all your equipment options is just as important

    National-scale installers don’t just offer higher prices – they also tend to have fewer solar equipment options, which can have a significant impact on your system’s electricity production. By collecting a diverse array of solar bids, you can compare costs and savings based on the different equipment packages available to you.

    There are multiple variables to consider when seeking out the best solar panels on the market. While certain panels will have higher efficiency ratings than others, investing in top-of-the-line solar equipment doesn’t always result in higher savings. The only way to find the “sweet spot” for your property is to evaluate quotes with varying equipment and financing offers.

For any homeowner in the early stage of shopping for solar that would just like a ballpark estimate for an installation, try our Solar Calculator that offers up front cost and long term savings estimates based on your location and roof type. For those looking to get quotes from local contractors today, check out our quote comparison platform.

 



environmental solar benefits graphic


 

Posted on JANUARY 23, 2018 by SARA MATASCI.
 
Categories: SOLAR IN YOUR STATE, NEWS
 
Tags: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (PG&E), SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC (SDG&E), CALIFORNIA, NET METERING, NET METERING 2.0
 

Post navigation

 DO SOLAR PANELS WORK IN THE WINTER? SOLAR SNOW PERFORMANCE EXPLAINEDWHICH PG&E RATE SCHEDULE IS BEST FOR SOLAR? UNDERSTANDING PEAK HOURS 

14 thoughts on “California Net Metering: Everything You Need to Know About NEM 2.0

  1. 83fadcc48215574d91b18bbfde6c6f59?s=44&d=JPJanuary 10, 2018 at 11:54 pm

    The fact that you can’t roll over surplus energy credits from one year to the next sucks. I put in solar 9 years ago (December of 2008) and have had an energy credit of between $200 and $350.each year.

    If I had actually consumed this energy, I would have had to pay this fee, but when the credit was displayed on my annual True up period I got less than 4 cents of credit for each kilowatt. So for a credit of $350.00, I got an actual credit of less than $35.00. This is a double standard, rip off and bait and switch tactic by our government bureaucrats!

    On top of that. since I’m grid tied, my monthly meter rental and access charges went from $5/month to $20 month. Another rip off because we were promised by the government bureaucrats that we would be benefiting the state and the environment. Hogwash.

    Now the messaging is – if you have solar, you aren’t paying your fair share. It’s not “fair” that you’re connected to the grid and yet not paying money to the utilities and bureaucrats slush funds because they are losing revenue. So it’s all a scam. It’s electric grid socialism!

    And on top of that we tax payers subsidize all the electric car owners who get “free” electricity to charge their cars. Another scam! Remember there is no such thing as “free”

    Since the passage of SB1 in 2017, now those same electric car owners are being hit with a $100 fee each year when they register their “Zero Emission Vehicles” because they’re not paying their “fair share” of gasoline taxes that can be siphoned off into various slush funds instead of being used to repair our roads.

    The recent gas/car registration fees on SB 1 will put less than 17 cents/dollar to road repair. READ THE FRIGGIN BILL! The rest of the money goes to such things as Intercity and Commuter rail, State Transit Assistance Programs, Public Transit i.e. the Choo Choo train to nowhere (High Speed (sic) Rail), Trade Corridors, University Transportation Research, Parks and Agriculture programs, Unions and pensions, etc. Every organization has their hands in the till!

    So the bottom line is, you will continue to pay more and more for your “free” solar energy. I’m now installing a large battery backup system, so when PG&E and the government bureaucrats come knocking, I’ll be off the grid. Don’t be fooled it’s all a scam.

    The only reason I put in solar was because when I ran the numbers I was paying $400-500/month electric bills. It was half the price/month to pay a loan on my solar. Now that more and more people are going solar and the utilities revenues are dropping, they are looking for ways to recoup the money they’re losing.

    I don’t blame the utilities, they have to make a profit. I blame the bureaucrats with their bait and switch tactics.

    My suggestion: if you’re going solar, go all the way and get off the grid. Then YOU control your electricity.

     
  2. df0ad35457300845025a368b96b57fc8?s=44&d=LindaFebruary 4, 2018 at 7:29 pm

    Hi, what happens when Buying a house with fully owned solar? Is the contract with pge grandfathered from the time of original owners installation?

     
  3. c2ffd26e3f3889d49b8dafdb07a80c39?s=44&d=DavidMarch 11, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    Great article.
    Can you include what LADWP’s NET Metering policies are?
    Thanks

     
  4. e1952b13d8911facd5b3d84e3d495d11?s=44&d=Sara MatasciPost authorMarch 12, 2018 at 10:32 am

    We have a full article on LADWP net metering – you can find it here.

     

Comment navigation

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

,,,

Last month's bill was $0, with a $44 "credit".

,,,

..... At the severely discounted sell back price.

:angry:

 

St. Peter, doncha call me, cuz I can't go

Image result for company scrip

 

I owe my Soul to the Company Store.

 

 

 

Dutchman had it right in #9

, get a Tesla

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ease the sheet said:

We have one of those older houses. As well, I live with a woman who feels the cold but seems to have been born on a tent, doesn't like window coverings and doesn't realise lights can be turned off.

Our house requires about 5kw a day to keep warm during winter. That can be improved upon. ....

Raised in a tent ... mine must have been raised in a hermetic bubble, I can't remember the last time she opened a window. She rides that thermostat, AC or heat, like a one-armed bandit at a broken motel on the Nevada border.

It used to bother me, the wife's profligate use of energy, but then I looked at the data. With the new house, and its six-inch walls, low-e widows and ocean of attic fill, it turned out that my Jacuzzi uses more seasonal energy than the entire house, and I ain't giving up the 'cuzzi, it has a magical ability to make cups of Gin & coconut water appear in my hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Raised in a tent ... mine must have been raised in a hermetic bubble, I can't remember the last time she opened a window. She rides that thermostat, AC or heat, like a one-armed bandit at a broken motel on the Nevada border.

It used to bother me, the wife's profligate use of energy, but then I looked at the data. With the new house, and its six-inch walls, low-e widows and ocean of attic fill, it turned out that my Jacuzzi uses more seasonal energy than the entire house, and I ain't giving up the 'cuzzi, it has a magical ability to make cups of Gin & coconut water appear in my hand.

Nice....did you have the house built to those specs...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, mikewof said:

,,, With the new house, and its six-inch walls, low-e widows and ocean of attic fill,

just for comparison, 

a prospector in these mountains  circa 1890

400623_10201527748256819_1774214462_n.jpg.992e1a63e13dc46702035a5ba68af472.jpg

 

Edit

It was a 3 day ride to the nearest "civilization"

 

Edited by Mike in Seattle
perspective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My builder talked us out of 2x6 framing and suggested we spend the difference on closed cell foam insulation. The results are remarkable. The house is like an igloo cooler. The only drawback, in my estimation, is that the underside of the roof deck is sprayed also. It makes the mechanicals more efficient up there, and it’s great storage inside the envelope, but spotting a roof leak will be near impossible. We had the option to spray the top of the upstairs ceiling instead, but it was more money so I decided to roll the dice.

As I write this I wonder if thermal imaging would show a leak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Nice....did you have the house built to those specs...?

Nope, it's supposedly the standard building code in the county.

But it's still dumb, because the builder (Lennar) put in an upstairs 2 ton unit, a downstairs 3 ton unit, and a rooftop full of solar PV. Yeah the solar is decent, but it's silly, because it was a new house, it would have been cheaper and better to just put in a single heat pump, run ground exchange loops around the foundation before the backfill, and then heat and cool the house with the ground source heat pump. Mini splits to the rooms from a single heat pump would have avoided all the friggen ductwork too.

But solar pv is sexy and a ground source heat pump isn't. Also, Lennar bought the solar company, so they basically have converted the 200-some homes in the development to a power plant, they're selling the 1.5 megawatts of solar to Xcel Energy.

Given my druthers, as much as I like the rooftop solar, I would have still shitcanned it in favor of GSHP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Nope, it's supposedly the standard building code in the county.

But it's still dumb, because the builder (Lennar) put in an upstairs 2 ton unit, a downstairs 3 ton unit, and a rooftop full of solar PV. Yeah the solar is decent, but it's silly, because it was a new house, it would have been cheaper and better to just put in a single heat pump, run ground exchange loops around the foundation before the backfill, and then heat and cool the house with the ground source heat pump. Mini splits to the rooms from a single heat pump would have avoided all the friggen ductwork too.

But solar pv is sexy and a ground source heat pump isn't. Also, Lennar bought the solar company, so they basically have converted the 200-some homes in the development to a power plant, they're selling the 1.5 megawatts of solar to Xcel Energy.

Given my druthers, as much as I like the rooftop solar, I would have still shitcanned it in favor of GSHP.

I am envious in ways...I live in a 120 year old Florida home...no insulation...32 double hung windows...no central AC or heat....36 years now...well I put in 2 window shakers 4 years ago one on the down stairs TV room and the other in our bedroom....I don't much like summer or winter....do you have a spare room..

36 Home.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

....I don't much like summer or winter....do you have a spare room..

:D    You won't need Air Conditioning  in your Beautiful Mowich River Rustic Estate 

( listing #65 , above )

Fresh mountain breezes will relax your worries away.

 

Just step into your front yard and see your OWN  Sportsman's Paradise ,  just waiting,,,

 

1184915_10201527706335771_140621337_n.thumb.jpg.ed7f909098fb45cc57f3774cfa7794ae.jpg

 

Fresh from the Glaciers, your riverfront is just waiting for your line,

, and the fish seem to jump into your creel .

Bambi  will certainly be found in Plenteous Abundance and the Morning Bugling of Majestic Ilk will Sing to your Soul !

 

(  ^_^   ahem ) 

 

If like Winter Sports,  this listing is one of  a kind,, 

Cross country skiing ? 

Snowshoeing ?

Snow is GLORIOUS  and usually 12 feet  or MORE  !!

 

ADVENTURE AWAITS !    ,,

These  Mountains are full of old mines,, maybe YOU will be the one to find the Legendary Nugget !

 

 

:D  Don't procrastinate,, this one won't last long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dog in any of this but I do have a question.

Why is it you photovoltaic people think that a utility should buy from you your spare KW at market value? They, the utility are in business to sell electricity. As such they sure as shit aren't gonna pay you folks retail. They buy it off you at some sort of wholesale agreed price. Which I might add seems rather reasonable.

 

Now something to fire Skippy up again.... GO NUCLEAR!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

Nope, it's supposedly the standard building code in the county.

But it's still dumb, because the builder (Lennar) put in an upstairs 2 ton unit, a downstairs 3 ton unit, and a rooftop full of solar PV. Yeah the solar is decent, but it's silly, because it was a new house, it would have been cheaper and better to just put in a single heat pump, run ground exchange loops around the foundation before the backfill, and then heat and cool the house with the ground source heat pump. Mini splits to the rooms from a single heat pump would have avoided all the friggen ductwork too.

But solar pv is sexy and a ground source heat pump isn't. Also, Lennar bought the solar company, so they basically have converted the 200-some homes in the development to a power plant, they're selling the 1.5 megawatts of solar to Xcel Energy.

Given my druthers, as much as I like the rooftop solar, I would have still shitcanned it in favor of GSHP.

If it would have been cheaper they would have done it. Todays track homes are built as cheap as possible. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

No dog in any of this but I do have a question.

Why is it you photovoltaic people think that a utility should buy from you your spare KW at market value? They, the utility are in business to sell electricity. As such they sure as shit aren't gonna pay you folks retail. They buy it off you at some sort of wholesale agreed price. Which I might add seems rather reasonable.

 

Now something to fire Skippy up again.... GO NUCLEAR!

Not saying they should pay me retail, but it would be nice if they paid me what they pay other utilities that sell them power. In theory I could get (buy) a massive battery bank to store my extra, and every so often throw the main breaker and live off the grid. But I'd be paying my $30 per month anyway, and Florida law prohibits me from going off grid as long as the grid is operational. (I am allowed to have a back up generator for when power goes out, but once the power grid is restored it has to have an automatic switch to grid)...

This isn't so much about me wanting the power co. to pay me, as it is about me not wanting to pay the power co.

Today is mostly sunny, but very windy and quite cool (42f when I woke up this AM), so it'll be interesting to see the generation rate today. As of an hour ago it was over 110kWh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am envious in ways...I live in a 120 year old Florida home...no insulation...32 double hung windows...no central AC or heat....36 years now...well I put in 2 window shakers 4 years ago one on the down stairs TV room and the other in our bedroom....I don't much like summer or winter....do you have a spare room..

36 Home.jpg

Thats a beautiful home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

No dog in any of this but I do have a question.

Why is it you photovoltaic people think that a utility should buy from you your spare KW at market value? They, the utility are in business to sell electricity. As such they sure as shit aren't gonna pay you folks retail. They buy it off you at some sort of wholesale agreed price. Which I might add seems rather reasonable.

There was an article about this on the radio the other day...  Southern CA leads the way in solar powered homes.  One of the folks talking was for Southern California Edison...  this very questions was addressed...  After 3 minutes of a protracted answer about net metering, net surplus compensation,  and all that jazz... the interviewer asked what could the average consumer look to get back or save...   As the guy aptly put it... " net metering isn’t a way to earn extra money....  electricity is a commodity the has price that can fluctuate by the hour...  blah blah blah..."  The interviewer wasn't getting anywhere.. 

Kind of turned me off to considering solar...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

There was an article about this on the radio the other day...  Southern CA leads the way in solar powered homes.  One of the folks talking was for Southern California Edison...  this very questions was addressed...  After 3 minutes of a protracted answer about net metering, net surplus compensation,  and all that jazz... the interviewer asked what could the average consumer look to get back or save...   As the guy aptly put it... " net metering isn’t a way to earn extra money....  electricity is a commodity the has price that can fluctuate by the hour...  blah blah blah..."  The interviewer wasn't getting anywhere.. 

Kind of turned me off to considering solar...

 

indeed...it is a scam....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nacradriver said:

There was an article about this on the radio the other day...  Southern CA leads the way in solar powered homes.  One of the folks talking was for Southern California Edison...  this very questions was addressed...  After 3 minutes of a protracted answer about net metering, net surplus compensation,  and all that jazz... the interviewer asked what could the average consumer look to get back or save...   As the guy aptly put it... " net metering isn’t a way to earn extra money....  electricity is a commodity the has price that can fluctuate by the hour...  blah blah blah..."  The interviewer wasn't getting anywhere.. 

Kind of turned me off to considering solar...

 

No doubt the big energy guys are trying to squash the bug before it becomes a butterfly.

Would you rather sit in the sun for an afternoon, or a vat of oil, or a bin of coal, or a tank of nuclear waste water?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

No dog in any of this but I do have a question.

Why is it you photovoltaic people think that a utility should buy from you your spare KW at market value? They, the utility are in business to sell electricity. As such they sure as shit aren't gonna pay you folks retail. They buy it off you at some sort of wholesale agreed price. Which I might add seems rather reasonable.

 

Now something to fire Skippy up again.... GO NUCLEAR

Again, they pay good money for solar because they sell solar for even better money. Yeah, there was a little arm-twisting in the beginning, but they're making good money off of solar now, because they get to sell it at a premium since it's clean energy, and also because it's peak-load energy, PV makes power when consumers use the most power.

If PV made power at midnight, it would have only marginal value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bmiller said:

If it would have been cheaper they would have done it. Todays track homes are built as cheap as possible. Just saying.

It would have been cheaper by far, I ran the numbers.

But that wasn't their game. They wanted the long profit tail of those homes ... by owning the power out of 200 some homes, they'll sell that power for the next thirty years, about 28 years after the profit tail would judge ended for conventional homebuilders.

You're right, tract homes are built cheap, even custom homes like in Jeffco. But I'll wager that this is just the beginning. Remember when cell phones used to cost a few thousand bucks? Then the cell companies started giving them away for $0 down so that they could charge monthly fees on the airtime, handset insurance, installments on the phone itself, data, overages, etc..

Eventually, I can see builders giving away homes at near cost as long as the land is cheap, and the buyer is then locked into services from the buyer ... Like mortgage, power purchase agreement, water purchase agreement, maintenance agreement, HOA ... all owned by the builder.

Why not? It's the company store business model.

Also, aside from all that, solar is sexy, you can see it, GSHP is boring, a heat pump and a hole in the ground may be efficient, but I doubt it moves homes the way a roof full of PV does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am envious in ways...I live in a 120 year old Florida home...no insulation...32 double hung windows...no central AC or heat....36 years now...well I put in 2 window shakers 4 years ago one on the down stairs TV room and the other in our bedroom....I don't much like summer or winter....do you have a spare room..

36 Home.jpg

Those old Southern homes are COLD in the winter! We used to live in a  1800s era home in Alabama, even with a 96,000 BTU dual-phase unit, it was cold, because of the humidity. 

I grew up in Colorado, I only knew dry air, dry ground, dry groundcover. But I grew to love that wet Southern jungle in your area ... the cicadas, the unstoppable growing season. Yeah, the mosquitoes and the mold sucked, but the hot, wet summers suited me, things felt alive. 

That's a beautiful home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I am envious in ways...I live in a 120 year old Florida home...no insulation...32 double hung windows...no central AC or heat....36 years now...well I put in 2 window shakers 4 years ago one on the down stairs TV room and the other in our bedroom....I don't much like summer or winter....do you have a spare room..

36 Home.jpg

Hey h2O...if you have a few nickels and want AC/Heat with the hassle of putting in central HVAC system, You might consider a couple splits. No ducting you just have to run a coolant line to a wall mounted unit from the compressor. I put one in our sunroom which has no way to run ductwork for heat or cool (esp cool) via the central HVAC. It works absolutely great and uses much less electricity than the big central unit. I'm really happy with it and if I had it to do over, I'd seriously consider a few of those instead of the central unit (which works just fine but is a bit expensive to run). 

http://www.mitsubishicomfort.com/technology

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

No doubt the big energy guys are trying to squash the bug before it becomes a butterfly.

Would you rather sit in the sun for an afternoon, or a vat of oil, or a bin of coal, or a tank of nuclear waste water?...

I actually ran the numbers on this, and it didn't make financial sense to me...  that is I would never really recoup my initial investment...   but for shits a giggles I am going to solar my work-shed as a prelude to my next VW van project.   Cold beer form the sun I say.......  B)

My electric bill averages about $65 per month with the exception of December.. then it hits a lively $90.00..  the Mrs. loves her X-mass tree lights...  it makes the PAPI at LAX look like a dull flashlight on a pitch black night...   Where I live we really don't need AC, and in the winter a thicker pair of socks, heavier sweat shirt and/or pants, and an extra blanket are plenty to keep my Tutonic-Viking blood warm.   My gas bill never gets above $40....  with a water heater, stove and oven, and furnace.

But, maybe in a few years the prices of solar and the associated battery wall comes way down it may make scene .. but not until then..

One would think the utility companies would be in favor of this and would promote as it could be a cheaper and less third party dependent way to provide energy to the homes.... just remember 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing..   With the electric cars becoming more popular, can they generate enough power to furnish the grid... and with all the NIMBI ECO NAZIS.... good luck on building a new power plant.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

138kWh over and above usage today. The heat kicked on a few times in the morning, but I didn't log it in as being a "Heat/AC" day.

Just for reference, our monthly electric bill used to be around $200-$260 a month.

North Florida is not a cheap place to live when it comes to utilities. Land is reasonable, taxes the same, or better, cost of food is probably a little high compared with what I was used to, and the cost of gasoline is less..... But I have to drive a lot farther to get anywhere than I used to, so that's probably a wash too....

Tomorrow should be mostly sunny again. We'll see how that works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nacradriver said:

I actually ran the numbers on this, and it didn't make financial sense to me...  that is I would never really recoup my initial investment...   but for shits a giggles I am going to solar my work-shed as a prelude to my next VW van project.   Cold beer form the sun I say.......  B)

My electric bill averages about $65 per month with the exception of December.. then it hits a lively $90.00..  the Mrs. loves her X-mass tree lights...  it makes the PAPI at LAX look like a dull flashlight on a pitch black night...   Where I live we really don't need AC, and in the winter a thicker pair of socks, heavier sweat shirt and/or pants, and an extra blanket are plenty to keep my Tutonic-Viking blood warm.   My gas bill never gets above $40....  with a water heater, stove and oven, and furnace.

But, maybe in a few years the prices of solar and the associated battery wall comes way down it may make scene .. but not until then..

One would think the utility companies would be in favor of this and would promote as it could be a cheaper and less third party dependent way to provide energy to the homes.... just remember 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing..   With the electric cars becoming more popular, can they generate enough power to furnish the grid... and with all the NIMBI ECO NAZIS.... good luck on building a new power plant..

It doesn't sound like solar would be a good investment for you. I think that Guitar has the right idea for high-return investment-grade stuff ... beautiful rocks with rare gems and elements, to which he adds value. The increasingly sedentary Boomers are going to buy as much of that stuff as is available ... it fits their constitution, they want things that are rare, permanent and natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Point Break said:

Hey h2O...if you have a few nickels and want AC/Heat with the hassle of putting in central HVAC system, You might consider a couple splits. No ducting you just have to run a coolant line to a wall mounted unit from the compressor. I put one in our sunroom which has no way to run ductwork for heat or cool (esp cool) via the central HVAC. It works absolutely great and uses much less electricity than the big central unit. I'm really happy with it and if I had it to do over, I'd seriously consider a few of those instead of the central unit (which works just fine but is a bit expensive to run). 

http://www.mitsubishicomfort.com/technology

I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't love their mini-splits ... from military bases to computing centers to homeowners, they all have reasons why they like them more than forced air, water or steam.

But you're only seeing half of what those things are capable, like having a Lotus and only using it on grocery runs. When you have the mini-splits running off of a central heat pump that is on a ground exchange loop, you essentially have tapped into the best thermal battery around ... you can dump heat into the ground all summer, and pull heat from the ground all winter.

Eventually, commercial buildings are going to be designed around these, rather than ductwork, and then there will be no stopping them, because the buildings will have more usable, leasable space since less of the interior is wasted on ductwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites