but what is their output?I’ll disagree with this based upon several SoCal homes having roof mounted turbines. Y’all don’t have rural, unless you live in apple valley.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
I’ll disagree with this based upon several SoCal homes having roof mounted turbines. Y’all don’t have rural, unless you live in apple valley.
Can you take a picture of this? I've been curious if there can eventually be some ground mount wind turbines, but most look too bulky for a basic city/suburb solution.
Anything that can possibly block anyone's view is probably a no go or a lawsuit waiting to happen (me included if I had a neighbor wanting to do this).
I remember seeing this a while back, but no clue how much energy something like this can even generate (at least it's low on the ground). No updates in 2 years, probably vaporware/scam:
You realize it is a rendering, right? It is a wall in front of a solid wall that is going to pass very little flow.
This guy actually built one that didn't actually turn in a stiff breeze.
Could you build one and have it turn? In my opinion, yes, you could. I think that the video above has a number of engineering shortcomings. The overall design is to too far off the Parthian windmills that I posted above that work well. However, I suspect that each vertical axle would need to be coupled to its neighbors, requiring a chain and sprockets or gears. That is needlessly complex, it would be much simpler to have each axle spin independently of its neighbors, and make up the efficiency loss by a better rotor design. At the end of the day, it would easier to make a thicker version with many fewer axles. These designs will always be limited by having enough wind power to do something useful, and needing an external brake mechanism to limit overspeed in high winds.
Even in places like Northern England that have great wind off the North Sea, the power available is only 1-3kW, and the noise is not insignificant.
I'm not a fan of residential wind for a variety of reasons, but noise, and inefficiency are at the top of my list.
All the best,
BG
There was a Sunset magazine design house smack-dab in SF's MIssion District about 15 years ago, that had a working wind turbine on the roof, partially visible here:
Not a huge one, but working nonetheless - not sure how much energy it could produce though. A beautiful modern home, but sadly fell into disuse, vandalism, and disrepair over the years, and the wind turbine is no longer functional either.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
A large percent of our State is subjugated by the investor owned utilities (the largest: PG&E, SoCal Edison, and SDG&E). This is out of control and as we have discussed endlessly, our Governor is a cornerstone enabler of their corruption.
It seems like an astute candidate for the 2026 election for governor could make IOU crackdown/dismemberment a central platform issue. Newsom may run for president in 2026 so an upcoming Democrat interested in governorship might be wise to run with this. If not, even in our blue State, a Republican would have a decent chance of winning on that agenda.
It seems like an astute candidate for the 2026 election for governor could make IOU crackdown/dismemberment a central platform issue. Newsom may run for president in 2026 so an upcoming Democrat interested in governorship might be wise to run with this. If not, even in our blue State, a Republican would have a decent chance of winning on that agenda.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Newsom is bought and paid for by the utilities (as well as medical industry). Fat chance of any improvement there.
Any new candidate for governor will also be bought off. That's the way the system works.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
is this back on the table"
pv-magazine-usa.com
Californians could see up to $128 fixed charge added to their monthly electric bill
The monthly charge would be assessed regardless of any energy conservation efforts or solar production at home. Eighteen California Congressional representatives wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission warning the proposed charge would harm low- and middle income residents and...
pv-magazine-usa.com
is this back on the table"
Californians could see up to $128 fixed charge added to their monthly electric bill
The monthly charge would be assessed regardless of any energy conservation efforts or solar production at home. Eighteen California Congressional representatives wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission warning the proposed charge would harm low- and middle income residents and...
Wasn't there a bill to block this? I guess it won't pass?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That's just terrible.is this back on the table"
Californians could see up to $128 fixed charge added to their monthly electric bill
The monthly charge would be assessed regardless of any energy conservation efforts or solar production at home. Eighteen California Congressional representatives wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission warning the proposed charge would harm low- and middle income residents and...
We can't rely of the corrupt politicians to protect us.
For a little transparency on how the IOUs propose to track income;
Basically, they intend to leverage the income information that they have for FARE customers into two tiers, and lump all other customers into the highest tier.
Also this letter from members of the California congressional delegation may be of interest, as well as the references therein;
All the best,
BG
Basically, they intend to leverage the income information that they have for FARE customers into two tiers, and lump all other customers into the highest tier.
Also this letter from members of the California congressional delegation may be of interest, as well as the references therein;
All the best,
BG
RKCRLR
Active Member
Are the fixed monthly charges they are proposing completely separate from the additional energy fees? Or are they like the current minimum delivery charges (MDCs) and can they be used to offset energy charges and non-bypassable charges (NBCs)? Or perhaps MDCs remain a small component of the fixed fees?
RKCRLR
Active Member
There was also a question answered about how they are going to determine income level. For CARE and FERA customers they stated it wasn't necessary because that was already established. They stated for the 3rd bracket it wasn't necessary but there are 4 brackets in the tables. I don't understand their answer. I guess it depends on something happening in the future. So it appears that if you aren't CARE and/or FERA then they are proposing a $51 monthly fee for PG&E & SCE customers in the near term.
I have lost track of all the rate proposals that the CPUC and the for profit utility corporations have on the table, so I'm not sure if the proposal below is just one more or if this is the CPUC's response to the utilities' $128/month flat charge proposal.
www.kcra.com
The story suggests that it is the latter. But the only thing I'm sure about is there will be several more proposals to weaken or kill off rooftop solar before the year is over.
California proposal would change how power bills are calculated, aiming to relieve summer spikes
It's become a rite of summer in sunny California: When the temperature spikes, so do electricity bills, leaving some customers with monthly payments over $500.
www.kcra.com
The story suggests that it is the latter. But the only thing I'm sure about is there will be several more proposals to weaken or kill off rooftop solar before the year is over.
RKCRLR
Active Member
Yea, the story says $24.15 is the latest proposed monthly fixed charge. The $51 and $73 rates were turned down. Personally, I could live with $24.15 but it would be interesting to see is treated like a minimum delivery charge or if any energy use gets tacked on to the fixed fee.I have lost track of all the rate proposals that the CPUC and the for profit utility corporations have on the table, so I'm not sure if the proposal below is just one more or if this is the CPUC's response to the utilities' $128/month flat charge proposal.
California proposal would change how power bills are calculated, aiming to relieve summer spikes
It's become a rite of summer in sunny California: When the temperature spikes, so do electricity bills, leaving some customers with monthly payments over $500.
The story suggests that it is the latter. But the only thing I'm sure about is there will be several more proposals to weaken or kill off rooftop solar before the year is over.
Similar threads
- Locked
