CA Solar Use Falling Because of Economics 362
mdsolar writes "The LA Time reports that California is seeing a big drop off in rebate applications for solar power systems. It seems that to get a rebate you have to also switch to a time of use rate with your utility. The math is not working out, especially for smaller systems that don't fully cover use during peak hours. The result: homeowners are reluctant to go with solar energy. 'The difference between peak and off-peak rates is particularly large in the 11 counties of Central, coastal and Southern California, where Edison provides electricity service to 13 million customers. Edison charges summer time-of-use rates that range from 29.7 to 35.9 cents per kilowatt-hour between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. It drops to a range of 16.3 to 18.6 cents per kilowatt-hour from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekdays and all weekend days and holidays, according to documents filed with the PUC.' There is likely an optimal system size that reduces consumer costs, but with things in flux you'd want some flexibility in your system."
They're the ones... (Score:2, Insightful)
The utility guys are the ones who lobbied for the unfair law in the first place! Do the folks of CA actually think the utilities are going to fix it?
"The fact that some customers may find themselves paying higher electricity bills if they decide to install solar ... is unfortunate and indeed perverse," California PUC President Michael R. Peevey said in a recent letter to legislators.
Translation: "We don't give a shit. We got the law we want and we're getting the money we want one way or another. Ha ha!"
Re:Batteries (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem here is that solar panels are very expensive. You need a LOT to cover your usage unless you have also done MAJOR energy usage reduction efforts such as LED bulbs, better insulation, appliances, etc. If you don't take all those measures, the panel's don't make sense financially.
Re:The math will never come out with current panel (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are wise and buy used solar panels for $0.05 on the dollar, clean them up yourself and fix the ones that havwe broken connections. You get power at less than current rates. At least that is what I got for 5 years before I moved.
new stuff is insane priced, and problem is these "green feeling" rich people want the shiny blue looking panels instead of the yellow and faded brown ones I use. and honestly having solar at your home is more advanced than the typical homeowner can handle. you need to have a clue about electrical and electronics or a really DEEP checkbook to pay the specalized electrician as most regular sparky's freak out when they see solar or wind power.
Having solar on your home is only for the technically advanced as you really need to maintain it yourself and understand it. Going out 3 times a year on your roof to clean the panels is not something Rich joe BMW driving homeowner is going to do. And you do not want someone that does not know what they are doing up there to cause a few thousand in damage and take you offline.
Re:Whither predictions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the electric companies know that PV cells don't give a good ROI, except if and when you can game the electric companies into subsidizing them for you.
Re:The math will never come out with current panel (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost of solar panels includes amortizing the fixed costs of production over a small number of units.
The environmental impact per unit of photovoltaics is a function of low adoption rates. Imagine the environmental cost of the first petroleum refinery if it was built with subsidies to serve a very small petroleum market. Imagine we live in a world without any photovolatics. Would you expect the first plant to yield net environmental benefits? The first ten?
The current efficiency of photovoltaics reflects a low level of technological and manufacturing investment, which in turn reflects a low volume market.
The point of developing renewable energy resources is to hasten the day when they can be supported sustainably and responsibly using free market economics. This is motivated by a projection of the current petroleum based economy reaching the end of viability in the next few decades. Capital does not care, because capital is mobile. It will take high returns today, take some loss when the petroleum economy starts to falter, then move to newly attractive technologies when that day comes. With globalization, it can afford to forsake America, seeking higher returns elsewhere.
Meanwhile the people who have to live through the change are going to have a rough ride economically and environmentally.
In a sense, you can think of the environmental impact of photovoltaic experiments as a kind of invested environmental capital.
Re:Alternative power storage (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you're saying that your 24 kwh is going to run a compressor, that will put air into perfectly insulated tanks (I'd really like to see your arithmetic here). OK, fine. Assuming you do so reversibly, you'll get out exactly as much energy as you put in. No, you can't do so reversibly.
But, after you pressurize the tanks, you want to cool them with water. Ideal Gas Law says that if you decrease temperature, you decrease pressure. Now you've got way, WAY less energy in your tanks to reverse-run your compressor (which, you might note, will be less efficient than a compressor optimized to compress).
So, yeah, I still want to see your work, because from where I'm standing, it looks like bullshit.
"(as I said actually reading the original post is such a novel idea)"
Would have been better if you were actually knowing what you were talking about, but OK.
Re:Batteries (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are economic incentives to use solar paid by the state, via the power company. If you want that $3,000 incentive you have to tell the electric company, but when you do, they jack your rates. Basically the article is showing that the amount the electric company jacks the rates means that, in general, it will remain financially better for most homeowners to stay full time customers of the utility. Now who would have thought they would do that?
Re:Whither predictions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you completely ignore the environmental impact. Aside from the power plants themselves making most superfund sites look like nice places to take a picnic, what comes out of the smokestacks eventually lands somewhere.
Currently in Northern New England we have a huge mercury problem - Not because we put it there, nor even because our power plants made it (we have one of the highest percentages of hydro and nuclear in the country); Rather, because midwest power plants, with their nice big smoke stacks, end up dumping most of the acids and metals in the smoke on us as rain.
So if you want to include the cost of cleaning up each and every lake in ME/NH, I suspect it would come out a hell of a lot higher than $0.04/KWh.
Re:The math will never come out with current panel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Panels not ready for prime time (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard stories from solar power installers about people wanting to install systems on top of a hill surrounded by trees that would only get about 4 hours of light a day, meaning that they'd need about 50% more panels than normal to cover the cost. Then the installers go into the house and see conventional light bulbs and old, inefficient appliances and just shake their head.
It would be better for people to be spending money increasing efficiency and tightening up their houses than to buy whole new solar panels.
And if they're going to be putting up solar panels, why not do it in an intelligent way? For about $600, you can take one or two rooms off of the grid entirely with a system that will scale easily by adding another charge controller or inverter. I'm hoping to take my fridge off the grid in a little bit for about that price, with the added benefit of keeping my stuff cold when the power goes out.
Re:Batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
To the majority, saving energy is somewhat below having a nice haircut in the priority list.
Re:Batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if `saves almost nothing' means that the money saved on electricity is offset entirely by the payments made on that $40k, then that's a different matter, and he did well -- breaking even with solar power is hard to do in most cases. And eventually the system will be paid off. And as an added bonus, when something goes wrong and everybody else loses power
Re:Batteries (Score:5, Insightful)
Syncing controllers feed power BACK to the system to hel the power companies during peak daytime hours. contrary to your understanding from 8:00am until 5:00pm the most power is being used, having solar back-feed with the RIGHT gear helps the grid greatly reduce loads. These controllers do it very safely and are specified by the power companies. if they dont see voltage from the line side they shut down until they are manually reset.
these systems are proven and in use everywhere. Just because you dont know anythign at all about the subject and jump to some really wild conclusions does not mean the power companies do.
The power companies STOPPED giving solar people the payback at the higher daytime feed rates but giving them the backfeed rates at the cheaper off-peak while they resell that solar power at the higher premium-plus-peak rates. It's a cash grab and nothing more.
Re:Batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
The electric lobby got legislation passed that requires people who install solar panels to switch rate plans. The new plan they are forced to use prices electricity low during the times of day when the power they would produce is at its maximum and usage at its lowest, so power would be flowing into the grid and the electric company would have to pay the person. Then prices electricity high during the times when power generation is low and use is high when it is very likely that power will need to be drawn from the grid.
If they could stay at a flat rate, your example would be valid. However, in reality, the variable rate plan means you have to change the kWh in your example to dollars. So your example actually should read:
If you think that this wasn't deliberate and calculated out to the last fractional cent by the electrical generators prior to setting their lobbyists loose, well, bless your innocent heart.