Solar Power. Talk to me.

[Smoove_B]

What did you do to reduce your energy consumption by 62%?

Lots of Dad-voice yelling.

[Biyobi]

Lame.

Over the same period last year, I consumed 2372 KWH. So I guess reducing that to less than 900 is a good start (as that includes a full month without the solar panels in operation.

What did you do to reduce your energy consumption by 62%?

Apparently the conditions were met for a RM9 household "Everybody Dies!" scenario.

[Zaxxon]

Also, the panels were in place for one of the two months in question. More that than the shouting, methinks.

[RunningMn9]

What did you do to reduce your energy consumption by 62%?

I assume a big part of that is weather related (not needing to heat or cool house), changing out the last of the incandescent bulbs for LEDs, some other minor lighting changes, and a full month of 33 300W solar panels giving me juice (about 700 kWh in November).

[Zaxxon]

RM9, I now show you in the member list for our group.

We need three for a party...

[RunningMn9]

I have arrived!

[Zaxxon]

September's electricity bill: $9.55. I could get used to this.

April was another fun one. -$4 for the month. Gotta enjoy this before A/C season kicks in...

[RunningMn9]

Solid.

The net meter got installed for me on 12/10/2014. Since that day I have consumed a grand total of 591 KWH from the power grid (and that number will continue to shrink for another month or so). That's about 90% less than I used to pull from the grid.

At about $0.14 per KWH, that's about $82 worth of juice, with a monthly average of about $21 per month. Right now I also have about 1200 KWH banked with the local utility. Solar power has thus far greatly exceeded my expectations. All of my calculations for savings were based on old usage. Installing the Nest at the same time has allowed me to chase Nest Leaves, which has substantially cut daily usage as well. I was expecting so save about $50 per month, but so far I've been saving more than $100 per month. So I am pleased.

[Zaxxon]

Awesome.

[stessier]

I found out that I get a discount through my company for solar cells through a particular supplier. Their website has me pick out my house on Google maps and then estimates my savings. It suggested I would end up with 21 panels and have a 5.4 kW system.

That seems kind of small to me. I don't think I could get bigger, I just don't know if it makes sense at that size. They offer 10 year financing and it would be about $105/month over that time. It shows savings over the 30 year life of the panels, but a lot of that assumes costs keep going up a steady 3.6%.

I tried re-reading most of this thread and it sounds like you guys got bigger systems (9+ kW) and also have the benefit of SRECs (which SC does not). Any thoughts about this?

[Zaxxon]

I found out that I get a discount through my company for solar cells through a particular supplier. Their website has me pick out my house on Google maps and then estimates my savings. It suggested I would end up with 21 panels and have a 5.4 kW system. That seems kind of small to me. I don't think I could get bigger, I just don't know if it makes sense at that size.

I have 15x280W panels, for a 4.2 kW system. This is on the small side, but it's doing OK for me so far. As for what you can get, that depends on your roof size/orientation/situation, as well as on how 'well' you want the panels to work. For example, I have 8 on my south-facing roof face, 7 on the western one, and none on north or east. Had I wanted to shoot for higher production, I would have filled the eastern one (it'd produce less than the two I did, but still a significant amount. Just would have taken longer to pay back its cost). Same goes for the north, albeit to a more extreme amount. Generally, installers will stick to roof faces that are going to be the most efficient and therefore bring the best cost/benefit ratio, rather than getting you the highest production.

They offer 10 year financing and it would be about $105/month over that time. It shows savings over the 30 year life of the panels, but a lot of that assumes costs keep going up a steady 3.6%.

That's actually a fairly sane estimate. The quotes I received were 4-5% guesstimates. In my own analysis before getting my system, I went with 3.75% after looking at my actual increases over a few years prior, which averaged 3.8%.

I tried re-reading most of this thread and it sounds like you guys got bigger systems (9+ kW) and also have the benefit of SRECs (which SC does not). Any thoughts about this?

A bigger system will generally net you a lower installed cost per watt, and will obviously produce more power. But you can still get a significant benefit from a smaller system. Mine, for example, only covers about 50% of our annual usage but will pay for itself in 4 years or so assuming a moderate home value increase from the system. Ten years assuming it increases my home value by zero dollars.

As for SRECs, they're nice if you can get them, but they don't (for me at least) have a significant impact on payback. I get SRECs of $0.03/kWh produced, or about $170/year.

The biggest advice I'd give is to translate your quote(s) into apples/apples, English. Your cost/month is relevant, but on its own it doesn't tell you anything about whether this system is a good value. Convert the full cost of the proposal into a $/W number. Mine was about $3.50/W, which was pretty good for my size system. Also determine whether the panels, inverter(s) and associated monitoring hardware/software is run-of-the-mill or quality, and what the warranty on each is, as well as that for the installer's labor. These vary widely.

[Zaxxon]

SolarCity has a live display that really puts their crazy scale in perspective. Sheesh.

[RunningMn9]

This thread made me go check on my power situation. My system went live with net metering on 12/10, although it started producing power in November. Due to some absurd billing shenanigans from the local utility, I was billed $228 in December (when they actually owed me money). I have not paid them a penny yet, and they still haven't finished paying me back, not to mention the 1000+ KWH I have banked with them. The only downside so far is that I don't think the sun has been out the entire month of June so far, so the production is not as good as it should be this month. But that's also keeping the temps down to some degree, so it balances out maybe.

I will say that I think the Nest has saved me more money than the solar system. The Nest has enabled me to ruthlessly manage the energy consumption from afar, when I am not home to suffer the consequences.

[Zaxxon]

I will say that I think the Nest has saved me more money than the solar system. The Nest has enabled me to ruthlessly manage the energy consumption from afar, when I am not home to suffer the consequences.

My wife has a love/hate relationship with the Nest, likely for the same reason.

[Zaxxon]

A relatively good read from the New Yorker on the current state of solar power.

[LordMortis]

You two love birds ought to be happy you don't live in Michigan. The model for net metering looks like it's about to change.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index ... ble_t.html

It looks like if you use 200 Kilowatts of DTE Energy in a month but supply them with 300 Kilowatts of energy, you are still likely to have a net that pays them for the for privilege of borrowing energy.

DTE says it's time they stop subsidizing solar power users.



If I were at all capable and had the money, an off grid Tesla battery powered solar home sounds better and better.

[Zaxxon]

Net metering is a touchy subject. On the one hand, as a solar owner, I recognize that I'm getting a good deal by using the grid as an unlimited battery and paying very little for it. If I generate net-zero grid usage over the course of a month, and pay nearly $0 to my utility, that's not sustainable if a critical mass goes solar (as the utility would have insufficient revenue to actually maintain the grid). On the other hand, some of the plans I've seen call for something crazy like $50/mo just as a connectivity fee. I don't know what the right answer is, but something will have to change if residential solar installation rates continue skyward, or else the grid will collapse.

It's also a little disingenuous for the utilities to want to sell at retail and buy back at wholesale, given that any excess you sell them tends to be during the daytime at or near peak, and they are therefore charging another customer retail for it. They should pay retail. Especially since they are in most cases also gaining the benefit of using customers' solar production to earn RECs toward compliance of renewable energy sourcing requirements in many states.

[Zaxxon]

It looks like if you use 200 Kilowatts of DTE Energy in a month but supply them with 300 Kilowatts of energy

Side note: this is a pet peeve. The kilowatt (kW) is a measure of power, not energy. It measures instantaneous power production/consumption. Energy is measured (for the purposes of solar PV and utility bills) in kilowatt-hours (kWh). A kW is 1,000 watts of power. A kWh is the equivalent of 1,000 W steady over an hour, 500 W for 2 hours, etc.

[Isgrimnur]

Net metering is a touchy subject. On the one hand, as a solar owner, I recognize that I'm getting a good deal by using the grid as an unlimited battery and paying very little for it. If I generate net-zero grid usage over the course of a month, and pay nearly $0 to my utility, that's not sustainable if a critical mass goes solar (as the utility would have insufficient revenue to actually maintain the grid). On the other hand, some of the plans I've seen call for something crazy like $50/mo just as a connectivity fee. I don't know what the right answer is, but something will have to change if residential solar installation rates continue skyward, or else the grid will collapse.

Would that be white light flight?

[RunningMn9]

They should pay retail.

That's the crux of what MI is trying to do though, no? They aren't saying that net metering won't exist, they are saying that when you send power up to the grid, they will only pay you the wholesale rate for it, and when you take power off the grid, they will charge you retail for it.

If you agree that they should pay retail, then your first paragraph doesn't make sense.

That said, I understand your point to a degree - I haven't paid my electric utility a penny since January. I assume they aren't happy with this. But it's not like I'm not adding value to their solution. Distributed power generation at peak hours is a benefit to them.

[Zaxxon]

They should pay retail.

That's the crux of what MI is trying to do though, no? They aren't saying that net metering won't exist, they are saying that when you send power up to the grid, they will only pay you the wholesale rate for it, and when you take power off the grid, they will charge you retail for it.

If you agree that they should pay retail, then your first paragraph doesn't make sense.

That said, I understand your point to a degree - I haven't paid my electric utility a penny since January. I assume they aren't happy with this. But it's not like I'm not adding value to their solution. Distributed power generation at peak hours is a benefit to them.

No, my first paragraph does make sense. They should pay retail for my excess because they are effectively earning more than retail for it (retail they charge the schmuck next door + the benefit they gain from the RECs). And I should pay a reasonable fixed cost each month regardless of usage, which reflects the cost to maintain my household's 'share' of the grid infrastructure. Tying that fixed cost to usage when a large percentage (eventually) of your customer base has no net usage is a losing proposition.

What MI and other places are trying to do is continue to ignore this fixed vs variable cost mismatch, and instead kick that can down the line while screwing PV owners. Then when the can is reached again, they'd also add a fixed fee.

[LordMortis]

And I should pay a reasonable fixed cost each month regardless of usage, which reflects the cost to maintain my household's 'share' of the grid infrastructure. Tying that fixed cost to usage when a large percentage (eventually) of your customer base has no net usage is a losing proposition.

Even knowing that it will jack my personal bill up, changing all bills to reflect an infrastructure monthly fixed cost makes the most sense to me. I have no idea how the CPA would work out the cost/value but I do know that my water went this way in last six years (to my anger actually, because my fixed water costs not only exceed my usage costs but are now like twice or more what my usage costs were in 2003.)

[rshetts2]

They should pay retail.

That's the crux of what MI is trying to do though, no? They aren't saying that net metering won't exist, they are saying that when you send power up to the grid, they will only pay you the wholesale rate for it, and when you take power off the grid, they will charge you retail for it.

If you agree that they should pay retail, then your first paragraph doesn't make sense.

That said, I understand your point to a degree - I haven't paid my electric utility a penny since January. I assume they aren't happy with this. But it's not like I'm not adding value to their solution. Distributed power generation at peak hours is a benefit to them.

If it was costing the utility company by buying your power at retail, then I could see their point. It doesn't cost them, they just don't profit as richly from the excess. In effect they are taking your excess energy at wholesale when you dont need it and the selling it back to you at retail later. When a farmer produces food does he have to pay retail for any personal usage of that food, or does he just put it on his table at cost? Clearly, by paying out wholesale, their intent is to diminish the cost effectiveness of residential solar and make it a less attractive alternative. This is about control, pure and simple. And fuck DTE about "subsidizing" they get subsidized with our tax dollars every frikkin day.

[Isgrimnur]

When a farmer produces food does he have to pay retail for any personal usage of that food, or does he just put it on his table at cost?

But he's not moving it from field to table. He's selling it to the grocer, who's then selling it back. The grocer has overhead in terms of the transportation and storage costs, even if the destination is the same place. If the farmer never sells it off in the first place, then there is no transaction to offset and have to pay for movement costs.

Whether wholesale is fair or not, buying from you at retail is a losing game for the providers.

[Zaxxon]

When a farmer produces food does he have to pay retail for any personal usage of that food, or does he just put it on his table at cost?

But he's not moving it from field to table. He's selling it to the grocer, who's then selling it back. The grocer has overhead in terms of the transportation and storage costs, even if the destination is the same place. If the farmer never sells it off in the first place, then there is no transaction to offset and have to pay for movement costs.

Whether wholesale is fair or not, buying from you at retail is a losing game for the providers.

In this analogy, be sure to include the fact that the grocer is required by law to buy a certain percentage of his stock from local farmers.

[LordMortis]

When a farmer produces food does he have to pay retail for any personal usage of that food, or does he just put it on his table at cost?

But he's not moving it from field to table. He's selling it to the grocer, who's then selling it back. The grocer has overhead in terms of the transportation and storage costs, even if the destination is the same place. If the farmer never sells it off in the first place, then there is no transaction to offset and have to pay for movement costs.

Whether wholesale is fair or not, buying from you at retail is a losing game for the providers.

In this analogy, be sure to include the fact that the grocer is required by law to buy a certain percentage of his stock from local farmers.

It's a nonsensical analogy to me but I would also only have one grocer supplying an entire area and they would be non profit grocer whom are subsidized with state taxes.

Edit: Never mind on the non profit part. Though at appears as though DTE make are a large for profit incorporation and yet they don't pay taxes and get tax rebates

[RunningMn9]

No, my first paragraph does make sense.

I see what you are saying.

This is one of the reasons that I think it's silly that the physical power grid is owned and maintained by private utility companies that need to make a profit. Any time someone needs to make a profit off of something that people *need* and can only get from them, I think it's a mistake.

[Zaxxon]

Agreed. It'll be interesting in several years when solar + battery costs are no longer astronomical and households start *actually* disappearing from the grid in measurable numbers. If it actually takes off, then the power companies will have a shrinking base of customers from which to recoup those fixed costs, and the bills rise (or the power co is further subsidized). That in turn encourages more to leave the grid. Rinse, repeat, ..., profit?

[malchior]

I've since moved on from energy (in the last few months) but I did sit in a session about the future of retail solar nationwide. This will get a bit R&P but I think it's pretty straightforward. The lawmakers and industry mouthpieces involved might talk about not subsidizing solar anymore because it isn't a new technology but almost universally these laws are pushed by a specific set of interests as a point disincentive to solar adoption. From a straight economics standpoint treating a home user as a wholesaler is absurd. The homeowner has no market power, no scale, and isn't able to generally procure the same type of capital financing a large power producer is capable of (not that it is easy for them either as I'll talk about below). The purpose of the law isn't to level any playing field - it is to take the playing field away. They are regressive, reactionary policies designed to protect certain parties and they are cynical considering that the overall environmental situation is worsening.

As to the profit angle - in almost every state the profit level of the company is statutorily controlled - except for the so call independent power providers (IPPs) which sell into partially deregulated markets. That leads to a lot of games playing but in general it is a net benefit. The IPPs generally make money running peakers -- providing power when the grid is running at the extreme edges of capacity and charge a premium. This is a good thing - they run lean and mean and provide reliability to the grid. And allowing the regular monopoly utilities to earn a profit is good because it has historically encouraged infrastructure development. There are a lot of problems obviously but the model has worked fairly well so far. For what it is worth - most of these anti-solar laws are being pushed by the supply side of the power industry - meaning the energy companies who want to still trade in oil/coal/natural gas etc. The utilities in my experience see distributed solar as an aid to them. Keeping up with demand has been a challenging issue and investing capital to build new power plants is *extremely difficult*. They believe in global warming. Every single one I'd imagine. And so do the investors. And both sets of stakeholders don't know how it'll affect the future of their industry. Investing hundreds of millions of dollars for a plant that might need to be remediated for emissions in 10 years or run at less than predicted capacity or worse effectively shut down is becoming a real issue. Texas has a fairly deregulated energy industry with few restrictions and even they are having a very hard time keeping up with capacity in ERCOT. It is a real problem.

Edit: After thinking about this some more this one could be a little different than the ones sprouting up throughout the mid-west around net metering. It could be that DTE also just wants a monopoly on RECs. I don't know how RECs are structured there but they might have some angle they are working. Either way it is short-sighted as hell.

[Jaymann]

A tale of caution and eventual redemption:

So the contractor who installed my roof and then to put in solar turned out to either be a crook or went bankrupt. Everything was going fine until my solar stopped working. And when I tried to contact the contractor he did not return my calls. I then struggled to find a reputable solar company to fix it. I finally did, and here is what I found out:

1) I did get a good inverter, that wasn't the problem.
2) Solar panels degrade over time, maybe 5% to 10% per year.
3) I was sold panels made in China (2 of them cracked) so forget a warranty.
4) The voltage of the panels was at the bottom end of the spectrum and weren't putting out enough voltage to run the system.
5) You need to keep the panels clean.
6) It was difficult to find any panels with voltage that low, but eventually the new company did.
7) For about $2k I added 4 more panels and now there is enough juice to run the system

[Zaxxon]

They degrade 1-2% per year, heavier in the front. Lots of Chinese companies are reputable.

Sucks that you went through that, tho.

[noxiousdog]

No, my first paragraph does make sense.

I see what you are saying.

This is one of the reasons that I think it's silly that the physical power grid is owned and maintained by private utility companies that need to make a profit. Any time someone needs to make a profit off of something that people *need* and can only get from them, I think it's a mistake.

This is old, but how else would you attract the capital to build the infrastructure?

[RunningMn9]

I would look into how Nebraska did it. (I think it's Nebraska)

[rshetts2]

When a farmer produces food does he have to pay retail for any personal usage of that food, or does he just put it on his table at cost?

But he's not moving it from field to table.

You never lived in farm country did you? I was in fact referring to food that goes directly from the field to the table, or milk or home slaughtered meat. Its kind of moot anyway because DTE is going to do what they want here in Michigan. Our screwed up state government will see to that.

[Rip]

California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down after years of under-producing electricity — not to mention the plant was blinding pilots flying over the area and incinerating birds.

The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would. The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.

And it does all this at a cost of $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Interestingly enough, Ivanpah uses natural gas to supplement its solar production.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/17/obama ... 43FylOnGqv

[Isgrimnur]

Riverside CA Press Enterprise

Last year, its second year of operations, the plant produced 624,500 megawatt hours of solar power, according to numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is about two-thirds of its annual production goal that was made public by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Ivanpah officials have maintained that they always expected it to take about four years for the plant ramp up to peak production levels.

An official with BrightSource Energy said in statement Thursday that the plant remains on track.
...
“Now entering its third year, this first-of-its-kind solar thermal project continues to set new production records and we are confident the plant will ramp up to full production as originally planned.”

PG&E buys electricity from two of plant’s “power tower” units under confidential purchase agreements – so it is not known publicly how much the plant is falling short.

[Rip]

So what you are saying is they expected to be in danger of default from jumpstreet.

Nice.

[Isgrimnur]

You really need to get your eyes checked.

[Rip]

You really need to get your eyes checked.

What I see is.

Ivanpah officials have maintained that they always expected it to take about four years for the plant ramp up to peak production levels.

An official with BrightSource Energy said in statement Thursday that the plant remains on track.

and

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg ... E-contract

Energy production has picked up at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert, but not enough to allow the plant’s owners — who include Google and Oakland-based BrightSource Energy — to avoid the risk of defaulting on their contracts to deliver electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric.

Majority owner and plant manager NRG Energy said in its most recent quarterly report that it won’t be able to deliver the electricity promised in its power purchase agreements with PG&E. The agreements cover output from two of Ivanpah’s three units.

The contracts are confidential, but in its Nov. 4 filing NRG said it “expects that the units will not meet their guaranteed energy production amount for the initial performance measurement period,” which ends in January, two years after commercial operations began. NRG said that if that happens “PG&E may, at its option, declare an event of default,” and that it was “exploring options to mitigate this risk or its consequences.”

So my question is if they are on track but can't meet their obligations, does that not suggest they never planned to meet the obligations?

The only way to be both on track and yet failing to meet obligations is if that track never had any chance of meeting obligations.

[Isgrimnur]

As much as I hate to admit it, in this case, you have a good question.