1 1
billvon

Solar saving neighborhoods money

Recommended Posts

There's a favorite myth that deniers often use to attack residential solar.  "Why should I have to pay for my neighbor's solar?  I am paying his bill and he's paying nothing!"

Turns out not only is that not true, the opposite is true - residential solar saves money for the neighborhood.

"Scientists say solar panels lower peak demand on stressed traditional grids and have reduced the amount of infrastructure dollars that energy utilities must invest. . . . .Utilities have worried that solar panels increase the cost for surrounding homes, maybe based on the idea that these neighbors could be charged higher rates to compensate for “missing” electricity customers.  Instead, Pearce and Soulemane found that homes with solar panels are heavily subsidizing their local electrical grids—to the point that their research calls for regulatory reform."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a35474729/solar-panels-bring-down-energy-costs-for-everyone/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032120308832?via%3Dihub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ron and Brent don't understand is what real independence means.It's not subsidizing big oil and a gun safe full of AR-15s. It means not fighting for oil in the middle east. It means real energy independence but Germany is already ahead of America because of trump and the GOP.

In Germany, solar panels are transforming home life and offering energy independence

In Germany, Solar-Powered Homes Are Really Catching On The country is getting closer to the solar home revolution: a panel on every roof, an EV in every garage, and a battery in every basement.

Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile China has announced plans to dominate America.

China Says It Will Stop Releasing CO2 within 40 Years Xi told the United Nations yesterday: "We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060." Beijing has adopted an emissions trading program for its power plants; has aggressively pursued a renewables build-out; and is pushing to electrify freight, taxis and public transit in attempts to improve the country's air quality.

The city of Beijing, alone, is planning to convert 20,000 taxis to electric vehicles by year's end, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies."

Chinese Electric Cars Will Take Over The World – If We Let Them

China’s electric car strategy is starting to go global – and the U.S. is lagging behind

Meanwhile Tesla announces expansion after expansion in China.

Share this post


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

..."Scientists say solar panels lower peak demand on stressed traditional grids and have reduced the amount of infrastructure dollars that energy utilities must invest...

Really? 

You mean having solar producing power during the daytime (peak energy usage times) lowers demand on the systems?
So that the 'peak demand' doesn't 'peak' as high?
And this makes it easier for the utilities?

Wow. What an amazing concept!

(note: we really need a 'sarcasm' font)

Share this post


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

Really? 

You mean having solar producing power during the daytime (peak energy usage times) lowers demand on the systems?
So that the 'peak demand' doesn't 'peak' as high?
And this makes it easier for the utilities?

Wow. What an amazing concept!

(note: we really need a 'sarcasm' font)

Not too shabby for a guy that got into MIT believing jump planes ran on CO2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

What Ron and Brent don't understand is what real independence means.It's not subsidizing big oil and a gun safe full of AR-15s. It means not fighting for oil in the middle east. It means real energy independence but Germany is already ahead of America because of trump and the GOP.

In Germany, solar panels are transforming home life and offering energy independence

In Germany, Solar-Powered Homes Are Really Catching On The country is getting closer to the solar home revolution: a panel on every roof, an EV in every garage, and a battery in every basement.

Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year

In 2013 we were in southern Turkey.  Just about every home and business had a solar water heater on the roof.  Really lo-tech stuff, any plumber can put one together, and save a bundle of heating expenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally find it astounding that more people in the sun belt don't use solar power. Here, there are tons of solar farms, and lots of roofs with installations. Including, yes, a parking lot covered with solar panels. Considering that I'll park way far away for covered parking in the summer in the south (not for much of anything else), that seems like a complete no-brainer to me.

The up-front cost is significant, but as people install them, then the houses with panels are more desirable, and sell faster for better prices. They're not replacing gas (although we have limited gas supply around here), but they're definitely having an impact. A friend who heats with wood and rarely uses A/C hasn't paid an electric bill since moving into their house.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is always a fun topic. The real answer is, "it depends." It depends on a whole list of factors. The article is predicated on Scientists say solar panels lower peak demand on stressed traditional grids and have reduced the amount of infrastructure dollars that energy utilities must invest. I doubt the writers of the article cared to examine anything that didn't fit their study. Maybe because it's much more complicated than the factors they examined. Or maybe it would have had so many "what ifs" it would have had little value and definitely not printed in a Renewables journal.

The "stressed grid" premise exists in some areas, but not many, and probably makes sense in those areas. Some of those areas also have rolling blackouts as a normal grid management technique. In my area there would be a lynching if that was suggested. I've discussed this topic at length with utility colleagues across the country and there are definitely regional differences. I can't speak definitely for any area other than the SE. 

In the SE the grid is not stressed, at least not today or for the foreseeable future. Electricity cost +/- 12 cents / kWh. In CA, MA, VT, RI and other areas with large amounts of renewables the cost is +/- 18 - 20 cents. Not saying that renewables cause all of that but it's a primary factor.

In the SE the 12 cents cost is the all-in cost. If that is broken into 2 components we find that electricity production is in the 2.5 - 3 cents range and all other costs, the delivery system, delivery system maintenance, profit, etc., are 9 cents. From that one can infer that net metering should pay 3 cents because that is the cost that the utility avoids by not having to generate the power provided from renewables. The delivery system costs are not reduced and neither are just about any other costs. Yet the solar lobbyists have been successful in defining net metering as the full retail rate of 12 cents. That means that the solar owners on the system are being subsidized by all others. Solar owners are a small fraction of the total system load. Some argue that that is not true. Yet every customer has some type of "Distributed Energy Charge" as a line item on their monthly bill. 

It's been raining and cloudy for about a week and another 5 days is forecast. The solar output is ZERO. The solar owners are using the same amount of power and using the grid to have it delivered. It seems to make sense that they should pay for the use of the grid that they rely on. When the sun is shining and they use the grid less, it's still there and the costs don't diminish. At least that's one perspective.

What that means is that the utility still must have sufficient generation and a delivery system to meet the peak load. The size and costs of the system are not reduced yet revenue is reduced. Well, temporarily, until there is a rate hearing and rates are increased to provide sufficient revenue to support the system. Therein is the problem. Costs are shifted to non-renewable owners and the renewable owners still have the benefits. That can be addressed with rates and it's done in some areas.

Rates can be designed to equitably spread costs. One way is time of use rates, another is a separate rate for those that have renewables. A typical method is to have a $20 - $40 base fee for the grid connection, and a lower costs for energy. The base fee covers the infrastructure. The lower electricity fee is then the "net metering" value. Renewable folks don't like this because it "shines a light" on the true costs. The base cost is a huge ongoing discussion. A few studies have quantified it in the $22 - $28 range. This discussion is instantly complicated due to the claims that renewables "help" the grid. I've not seen any comprehensive studies that show it occurs or the value of it.

Under the current net metering program renewable owners do not pay for the grid, in most cases, except when they buy power. I said "in most cases" because the regulated utilities own most of the grid and use that method. There are some system owners that use another method. Amen, I'm on one of those. They use time of use rates for all residential consumers. 

They charge approximately $30 a month for the grid connection (metering, reading, billing, etc) , 5.15 cents for electricity, and $12 / kW for demand during the 3 on-peak hours each day. Using this method no one is subsidized or is subsidizing a solar owner, It encourages load shifting, using an electric dryer during off-peak is smart. Interestingly, there is very little solar installed in the areas with these type rates.

The traditional billing method charges 12 cents regardless of when the electricity is used. That creates a situation where the solar owner is subsidized by all other customers and the solar owner is not paying their "fair share" of the grid costs. Plenty of debate on that topic.

I've looked at numerous solar proposals and it's rare to find one that is economical. The solar sellers have plenty of inaccurate info in their proposals, some is just outright lies. People are free to make whatever decision they want. Just wish the info was accurate so they could make an intelligent decision.

Kallend is correct - Solar thermal, primarily water heating, is a good idea. It just takes space. Unless plumbers and roofers are educated it isn't done.

BIGUN is correct - the VA has a system wide goal to install solar, that doesn't make it a smart idea. My VA did some and the economics were negative. There would never be a payback! They did it anyway because they got brownie points for doing it and a big award. The one plus is that it does provide some shaded parking. The cost to build the elevated structures to install the panels exceeded the cost of the panels and the operating system. A "real" business would have never done that but since the VA doesn't have a P&L statement and they spend your money......

Wendy's comment about house values is the opposite here. Folks that financed the panels are having huge problems. They sell the house but still have the payments!, unless they can get the new owner to accept the solar contract. Buyers are reading the contract and wondering, "who would ever agree to this mess." Those that have panels and now need a new roof are being quoted significant costs to have the panels removed and reinstalled. Some roofers refuse to do it or will not warranty the roof. In about 7 years when the inverters fail folks are finding that the cost to have them replaced is about 50% of the cost of the whole system. And there are plenty of other issues. What a mess.

And let's not ignore the tax subsidies, grants, and other types of favorable financial treatment that renewables or conventional generation receive. It just makes it more complicated. Billvon will quickly and accurately point out that conventional generation and fuel sources have huge subsidies. I'd luv to see some PhD candidate unravel the tangled mess and provide an unbiased report.

I'm not saying that solar or renewables are bad. They definitely work in some situations. In some or all of CA that has grid issues and economic forces, it makes sense. I'm saying it's complicated and the study doesn't address many of the issues. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Costs are shifted to non-renewable owners

That is the whole point. It is how the goal will be reached. It is not supposed to be fair, it is supposed to encourage people to make the change. And yes, I know it can not go on forever and still provide funding for the stable grid that we all need. I was just reading today about rolling blackouts in TX going on right now due to the combination of the near record cold snap and frozen inoperative wind generators. There are no easy answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 1:54 PM, Phil1111 said:

What Ron and Brent don't understand is what real independence means.It's not subsidizing big oil and a gun safe full of AR-15s. It means not fighting for oil in the middle east. It means real energy independence but Germany is already ahead of America because of trump and the GOP.

In Germany, solar panels are transforming home life and offering energy independence

In Germany, Solar-Powered Homes Are Really Catching On The country is getting closer to the solar home revolution: a panel on every roof, an EV in every garage, and a battery in every basement.

Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year

And that is why they have the highest electricity prices in the EU.

EUR.30 kWh.

Share this post


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

And that is why they have the highest electricity prices in the EU.

EUR.30 kWh.

Yet with $5.20 a gallon gas, all kinds of regulations, expensive electricity, extensive social programs. The US needs to cut taxes, cut regulations, cut environmental regulations, etc. Then the GOP and big business still argue they can't compete! Surely Germans don't work that hard because they work an average of 404 hours less per year than Americans.

Why don't you look for facts and argument that actually support your positions. Or is FOX/Rupert Murdoch just that bad at spinning lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 1:54 PM, Phil1111 said:

What Ron and Brent don't understand is what real independence means.It's not subsidizing big oil and a gun safe full of AR-15s. It means not fighting for oil in the middle east. It means real energy independence but Germany is already ahead of America because of trump and the GOP.

Reality check

Because of fracking, the US is a net EXPORTER of fossil fuels 

OTOH Germany IMPORTS massive amounts of natural gas from Russia and depends on French electricity to stabilize its power grid.

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/DEU

”Germany relies heavily on imports to meet most of its energy demand. In 2019, energy imports accounted for 71% of the German energy supply.”

So, you call importing 71% = independence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Reality check

Because of fracking, the US is a net EXPORTER of fossil fuels 

OTOH Germany IMPORTS massive amounts of natural gas from Russia and depends on French electricity to stabilize its power grid.

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/DEU

”Germany relies heavily on imports to meet most of its energy demand. In 2019, energy imports accounted for 71% of the German energy supply.”

So, you call importing 71% = independence?

As always you're wrong. For 2021 YTD the US is a net importer of oil.

In fact 2020 was the sole year in the last 3/4s of a century where the US was not a net oil importer. That was because of trump's mismanagement of the covid crisis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

As always you're wrong.

Yep.  2016-2020 is the term that "fact" became a four letter word for republicans.

Residential solar is solving the problem of too much A/C load on hot days, since solar production and A/C usage are fairly in-phase.  The next problem is going to be the duck-curve problem, where traditional power demand (load - residential solar) ramps quickly around 5pm.  For that problem we have distributed storage, which is already making inroads in residential applications.

"Utilities have to build and upgrade power lines, transformers and other grid equipment to ensure they can support those peak loads, even when they may only arise for a few hours of the day during the hottest months of the year. DERs that can reliably shift loads in those hours could defer “wires” upgrades for years, or perhaps indefinitely, which is why they’re often called “non-wires alternatives,” or NWAs."

https://www-greentechmedia-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/californias-plan-to-crowdsource-distributed-energy-to-replace-grid-upgrades?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16125695994448&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.greentechmedia.com%2Farticles%2Fread%2Fcalifornias-plan-to-crowdsource-distributed-energy-to-replace-grid-upgrades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

As always you're wrong. For 2021 YTD the US is a net importer of oil.

In fact 2020 was the sole year in the last 3/4s of a century where the US was not a net oil importer.

 

So we both agree that during the last year of the Trump administration we were a net exporter of petroleum products yet somehow I am wrong?

You also failed to mention our exports of coal, which very much makes us a net exporter of fossil fuels. (Just as I said)

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php

Now I’m not sure how long that will last give the current administration’s war on fossil fuels.

Can you explain, just how is Germany more energy independent than the US given  they import 71% of their energy?

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

That is the whole point. It is how the goal will be reached. It is not supposed to be fair, it is supposed to encourage people to make the change. And yes, I know it can not go on forever and still provide funding for the stable grid that we all need. I was just reading today about rolling blackouts in TX going on right now due to the combination of the near record cold snap and frozen inoperative wind generators. There are no easy answers.

The answer is easy, just not very palatable.  As the top climate change official in Massachusetts said,

“Let me say that again, 60 percent of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you — the person across the street, the senior on fixed income,” he said. “There is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at, turn the screws on, and, you know, break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, what is the real cost of the electricity, including health costs of the coal to generate some of it, costs to surplus equipment that's no longer needed, cost to build new generating plants, etc.

Those are all real costs, just like the cost of disposing of less-recyclable packaging that we find convenient. We don't bear the cost a lot of the time, that's left for our children and grandchildren.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

On the other hand, what is the real cost of the electricity, including health costs of the coal to generate some of it, costs to surplus equipment that's no longer needed, cost to build new generating plants, etc.

Those are all real costs, just like the cost of disposing of less-recyclable packaging that we find convenient. We don't bear the cost a lot of the time, that's left for our children and grandchildren.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Re:  what is the real cost of the electricity

And do not leave out the costs of de-commissioning a nuclear plant.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


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

Hi Wendy,

Re:  what is the real cost of the electricity

And do not leave out the costs of de-commissioning a nuclear plant.

Jerry Baumchen

If the good deal you get comes at the expense of someone else, take into account what that means. If they know what a great deal it is and are OK with it, that's one thing. If they have no other choice (poverty, they're not here today, etc), then it's not as good.

Yeah, if I were poor, I'd be less concerned about it. But most of us here on DZ.com are more likely to have storage lockers to hold the extra crap that we own and don't have room for, than to be too poor to buy something of reasonable quality and provenance.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

On the other hand, what is the real cost of the electricity, including health costs of the coal to generate some of it, costs to surplus equipment that's no longer needed, cost to build new generating plants, etc.

Those are all real costs, just like the cost of disposing of less-recyclable packaging that we find convenient. We don't bear the cost a lot of the time, that's left for our children and grandchildren.

Wendy P.

Coal is needed to make solar panels, steel and cement so it’s not going away anytime soon and what we don’t use we ship overseas.  Steel is economically recycled that is why it is not piling up in landfills.  The same can not be said for solar panels which cost 10X more to recycle then the value of what is recovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kallend said:

What is the cost of recycling coal combustion products into coal?

Coal combustion products are recycled into plant food and drywall. Zero cost for plant food and very little for the drywall.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

Coal combustion products are recycled into plant food and drywall. Zero cost for plant food and very little for the drywall.

Didn't they teach you that time is  money when you got your MBA, and PhD in engineering.  Coal in 300 million years means we have to wait a long time..

Edited by kallend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1