Getting solar just to feel like your car is powered on sunshine

[ozweepay]

So already 90% of WA's energy on a bad day comes from Hydro, Nuclear and Wind. If you want to participate in reducing the rest, you can call up PSE and tell them you want green energy, and they won't source you from coal or natural gas.

Nuclear is considered "green?"

 

[deonb]

Nuclear is considered "green?"

In the context of climate change, it is.

In the context of what PSE provides it's not (they don't source you from Nuclear if you're on green power). So I don't actually agree with PSE. I would love a 'hydro + nuclear + wind' mix.

 

[Cottonwood]

Nuclear is considered "green?"

Whether or not Nuclear is green, it certainly is carbon free...

 

[ChadS]

The WA state incentive for solar makes no sense and does nothing (or less) for the climate. We have the biggest hydro-electric dam on the continent (Grand Coulee dam). Not only is it the biggest hydro plant - it's the fifth biggest electrical plant in the U.S:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

So already 90% of WA's energy on a bad day comes from Hydro, Nuclear and Wind. If you want to participate in reducing the rest, you can call up PSE and tell them you want green energy, and they won't source you from coal or natural gas.

But putting up solar panels in a state that's not particularly known for sunshine, especially considering it doesn't actually replace that much dirty energy, is the ultimate in feel-gooddedness.

You are correct that the grid in WA is already pretty green; in fact that's a point I've made in the past to a few people that were unhappy because they were unable to install solar for some reason or another (especially if they live in Seattle). And the way the WA incentive is set up, I'm not convinced it's a slam-dunk from the state's perspective either. But there are a few other things worth taking in to consideration:

• The WA solar incentive pays WAY more for in-state than out-of-state solar equipment. It's not just a small encouragement; it's a multiple. As enacted, it is more of an economic development plan than a green plan. You may not consider it a good economic development plan (I have some definite mixed feelings about it even without examining the numbers of the impact on the state economy in detail) but there's more than just environmental feel-goodedness to the incentive. Washington was trying to invest in a growth tech area that fit in with existing strengths.
• Most of WA actually gets quite a bit of sunshine, although I agree the incentive is not optimal and puts solar where the people are rather than where the sun is. However, even then whether the state is "known" for sunshine doesn't matter, the insolation value does. WA is definitely not tops, but is not bad overall; some places with more sunshine get too hot, and some places with less rain have dirtier panels, both of which reduce efficiency. Our seasonal changes are a bigger deal from this perspective, but then that matters less with the next point.
• The incentive was not intended to replace existing clean energy. (Though there is other legislation that muddles improperly in that IMO). WA and its energy needs are growing, and there are big downsides to building more dams. At the time the law was passed some new energy was dirty energy being purchased from out-of-state. The legislature was no doubt trying to turn some of the growth in to local clean energy. As it turns out there have been a lot of recent industry changes so in retrospect maybe the incentive wasn't "needed", but it wasn't intended to just replace one clean energy with another - the incentive is capped at 1/2 of 1% of any utility's generation. Given that it covered around a decade (and the panels will last much longer), that's only a small part of the growth, and none of the base.
• Your point is strongest (though in my opinion still stated too strong) when considered from the point of view of benefits to the state, which was likely how you intended it. However, as we all know, laws and incentives are created by an unsavory process and many end up being less than optimal. They are hard for us as individuals to change; once in place, we just have to decide whether it's worth us using it or not. Any individual deciding whether to use it has to make the decision in the context of their individual situation, rather than the whole state's. It makes more sense for customers of some utilities than others. Again, only 1/2 of 1% can take advantage of the incentive, so hopefully (though this will clearly not always apply; a problem with most incentives) those for whom it makes the most sense will go first.
• The small cap on generation combined with the economic development aspect also means that individuals putting up panels are doing more than just greening up their electric source; they are pioneers supporting a new field which will help bring down costs and raise demand, and hopefully (though this can never be guaranteed) WA solar manufacturers will at some point be selling their equipment out-of-state. Similar to why some buy a Tesla even if, say, they don't drive much or need such a big car. I can't start a car or energy company, but I try to support the ones moving in a direction that I feel is helpful. If all US car buyers only bought Tesla we would encounter new problems; but as long as the numbers are small I think there is a clear benefit to giving Tesla a boost.

Of course most of this doesn't apply to the OP, who is in another state with a really dirty grid. Sorry for the parts that are off-topic. However, OP did ask for reasons to install other than payback, and this points out some possibilities.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

You are correct that the grid in WA is already pretty green; in fact that's a point I've made in the past to a few people that were unhappy because they were unable to install solar for some reason or another (especially if they live in Seattle). And the way the WA incentive is set up, I'm not convinced it's a slam-dunk from the state's perspective either. But there are a few other things worth taking in to consideration:

• The WA solar incentive pays WAY more for in-state than out-of-state solar equipment. It's not just a small encouragement; it's a multiple. As enacted, it is more of an economic development plan than a green plan. You may not consider it a good economic development plan (I have some definite mixed feelings about it even without examining the numbers of the impact on the state economy in detail) but there's more than just environmental feel-goodedness to the incentive. Washington was trying to invest in a growth tech area that fit in with existing strengths.
• Most of WA actually gets quite a bit of sunshine, although I agree the incentive is not optimal and puts solar where the people are rather than where the sun is. However, even then whether the state is "known" for sunshine doesn't matter, the insolation value does. WA is definitely not tops, but is not bad overall; some places with more sunshine get too hot, and some places with less rain have dirtier panels, both of which reduce efficiency. Our seasonal changes are a bigger deal from this perspective, but then that matters less with the next point.
• The incentive was not intended to replace existing clean energy. (Though there is other legislation that muddles improperly in that IMO). WA and its energy needs are growing, and there are big downsides to building more dams. At the time the law was passed some new energy was dirty energy being purchased from out-of-state. The legislature was no doubt trying to turn some of the growth in to local clean energy. As it turns out there have been a lot of recent industry changes so in retrospect maybe the incentive wasn't "needed", but it wasn't intended to just replace one clean energy with another - the incentive is capped at 1/2 of 1% of any utility's generation. Given that it covered around a decade (and the panels will last much longer), that's only a small part of the growth, and none of the base.
• Your point is strongest (though in my opinion still stated too strong) when considered from the point of view of benefits to the state, which was likely how you intended it. However, as we all know, laws and incentives are created by an unsavory process and many end up being less than optimal. They are hard for us as individuals to change; once in place, we just have to decide whether it's worth us using it or not. Any individual deciding whether to use it has to make the decision in the context of their individual situation, rather than the whole state's. It makes more sense for customers of some utilities than others. Again, only 1/2 of 1% can take advantage of the incentive, so hopefully (though this will clearly not always apply; a problem with most incentives) those for whom it makes the most sense will go first.
• The small cap on generation combined with the economic development aspect also means that individuals putting up panels are doing more than just greening up their electric source; they are pioneers supporting a new field which will help bring down costs and raise demand, and hopefully (though this can never be guaranteed) WA solar manufacturers will at some point be selling their equipment out-of-state. Similar to why some buy a Tesla even if, say, they don't drive much or need such a big car. I can't start a car or energy company, but I try to support the ones moving in a direction that I feel is helpful. If all US car buyers only bought Tesla we would encounter new problems; but as long as the numbers are small I think there is a clear benefit to giving Tesla a boost.

Of course most of this doesn't apply to the OP, who is in another state with a really dirty grid. Sorry for the parts that are off-topic. However, OP did ask for reasons to install other than payback, and this points out some possibilities.

• Solar (and wind) can be cheaply integrated into a grid with lots of dispatchable hydro, because the hydro output can quickly be varied to match any increased variability introduced by solar generation.
• Grids have interconnections so a super-abundance of renewables can help clean other grids.

 

[RockinWithKids]

Solar isn't a great proposition where I live. Grid power (fueled primarily from coal) is so cheap here that it's hard to make the numbers work out in favor of solar panels on my roof.

But there is something psychologically appealing about the idea of driving my car on stored sunshine... knowing that I'm driving on burning coal doesn't feel quite as good.

Has anyone out there installed solar panels just for the feel-good aspects?! Am I crazy to be considering it?

We subscribe to wind/solar power (powers our EV and whole house). We pay $1 per 100kWh block. This doesn't "feel" as direct... but we have validated that their is oversight on it (ie I am not donating $7/month to my electric company).. thus I can honestly say that our EV is powered by the wind/sun.

 

[AB4EJ]

Solar in Alabama is definitely feel-good (if grid-tied). Alabama Power's rates discourage it - you buy electricity retail at 11.7 cents/kwh, and if you sell power back to them ("run the meter backwards") they pay you wholesale rates for it (3.5 cents per kwh). Still, if you time your consumption to correspond with maximum solar generation, you have a real cost avoidance of the retail cost (plus you don't pay sales tax on solar-generated power).

You can consider a solar investment by the payback time (about 15 years here); or, consider it as an investment with a return. I calculate the ROI on a solar investment here to be about 4% annually - which is slightly lower than the long-term averaged ROI of a conservative diversified portfolio; but if combined with a Tesla ( assuming you can charge during the day), you can drive with nearly zero fuel cost.

 

[MrClown]

Solar in Alabama is definitely feel-good (if grid-tied). Alabama Power's rates discourage it - you buy electricity retail at 11.7 cents/kwh, and if you sell power back to them ("run the meter backwards") they pay you wholesale rates for it (3.5 cents per kwh). Still, if you time your consumption to correspond with maximum solar generation, you have a real cost avoidance of the retail cost (plus you don't pay sales tax on solar-generated power).

In my case (Colorado, Xcel Energy), that wholesale rate for buying energy back only applies to net overproduction at the end of the year. Any hourly/daily overproduction, say during full sun at noon, that runs the meter backward is "bought back" at retail rate by simply reducing how much power was sold to me at retail. In addition, my overproduction is carried over month to month. I overproduce in summer and underproduce in winter months. The overproduction in summer gets "used up" in those winter months. By the time the year is over I'm a net consumer and don't sell anything back at wholesale rates. If I did end up with extra by the end of the year I would get paid for it at the wholesale rate, though that would be a very minimal amount of power relative to the overall system production. Is Alabama Power different?

 

[AB4EJ]

In my case (Colorado, Xcel Energy), that wholesale rate for buying energy back only applies to net overproduction at the end of the year. Any hourly/daily overproduction, say during full sun at noon, that runs the meter backward is "bought back" at retail rate by simply reducing how much power was sold to me at retail. In addition, my overproduction is carried over month to month. I overproduce in summer and underproduce in winter months. The overproduction in summer gets "used up" in those winter months. By the time the year is over I'm a net consumer and don't sell anything back at wholesale rates. If I did end up with extra by the end of the year I would get paid for it at the wholesale rate, though that would be a very minimal amount of power relative to the overall system production. Is Alabama Power different?

My understanding is that Alabama Power is different, at least according to how I interpret everything I have read so far on this. I have requested a packet from Alabama Power to request to do a grid-tied system, and I will post something about it if I learn different. From what I have read & heard so far, the consensus of opinion in the state is that global warming is a myth, and Alabama Power ratepayers and stockholders are not willing to subsidize alternative energy of any kind, in any way. (If anyone would like to correct me on anything here, please do, I am only reporting on the impressions I have so far). Issues of climate change will only start to sink in once the cost of replenishing the beaches on the Gulf Coast becomes unaffordable, and a few condos collapse into the gulf.

 

[MrClown]

Solar isn't a great proposition where I live. Grid power (fueled primarily from coal) is so cheap here that it's hard to make the numbers work out in favor of solar panels on my roof.

But there is something psychologically appealing about the idea of driving my car on stored sunshine... knowing that I'm driving on burning coal doesn't feel quite as good.

Has anyone out there installed solar panels just for the feel-good aspects?! Am I crazy to be considering it?

If you're with Xcel in Boulder you can request to have your energy generated from wind. It costs a few extra dollars each month (won't save you any money) but it's an option if you want to feel good (where feel good = do good for the planet) without spending thousands for solar on your roof. If nothing else it can buy you time until the ROI equation changes for solar which it will likely do within the next decade. The downside to the "feelgoodness" is that you can't actually see the wind power being generated right there and neither can your friends and neighbors whom you're trying to show your car isn't powered by coal.

To answer your initial question though - yes, we purchased our solar system around 7 years ago knowing the ROI would be around 15 years (not to mention the opportunity costs for that money). We made the choice anyway for the good of the planet which I guess makes us feel good.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

If you're with Xcel in Boulder you can request to have your energy generated from wind. It costs a few extra dollars each month (won't save you any money) but it's an option if you want to feel good (where feel good = do good for the planet) without spending thousands for solar on your roof. If nothing else it can buy you time until the ROI equation changes for solar which it will likely do within the next decade. The downside to the "feelgoodness" is that you can't actually see the wind power being generated right there and neither can your friends and neighbors whom you're trying to show your car isn't powered by coal.

I signed up for Windsource from Xcel and will keep that until my waiting spot on the local community solar garden opens up and I'm able to purchase some panels.

 

[DCAC]

But there is something psychologically appealing about the idea of driving my car on stored sunshine... knowing that I'm driving on burning coal doesn't feel quite as good.

Do it! Yes it feels good, plus your state's air will smell and look better.

 

[tga]

But there is something psychologically appealing about the idea of driving my car on stored sunshine... knowing that I'm driving on burning coal doesn't feel quite as good.

Except that you aren't driving on "stored sunshine". The grid may act like a big battery, but it isn't one. The electrons you pump out are used elsewhere, not stored for your later use.

Your excess solar may offset daytime CO2 production, giving you "CO2 credits" for night-time charging (and the night base generation is often cleaner), but if you charge at night, you are driving on burning coal (or whatever the night-time generation uses), like it or not.

 

[MrClown]

Except that you aren't driving on "stored sunshine". The grid may act like a big battery, but it isn't one. The electrons you pump out are used elsewhere, not stored for your later use.

Your excess solar may offset daytime CO2 production, giving you "CO2 credits" for night-time charging (and the night base generation is often cleaner), but if you charge at night, you are driving on burning coal (or whatever the night-time generation uses), like it or not.

I don't think anyone thinks a solar panel will pump electrons into their car at night. Despite this technicality (and the impossibility of tracking every electron from source to destination anyway), the reality is that the energy you produced during the day reduces the amount of energy produced by coal (or whatever your regional energy mix is) by that same amount during the day. Whether those solar electrons went into your car or somewhere else doesn't matter one bit to the world. Then you used the grid to charge the car at night using whatever the energy mix is, using up the credit earned through the day. You end up at zero or possibly slightly better if the grid really is cleaner at night. Looking at the world from space, you added a load (the car) and you necessarily had to an energy source (solar, wind, coal, gas, or whatever) to power it. If the added energy is "clean," the net effect to the environment is neutral. If the added energy is "dirty," the net effect is negative.

Does the carbon released into the world differ from the scenario above if you live off grid and charge your car exclusively from solar during the day? No. The other consumers of electricity during the day just used more coal while you used none instead.

Edit: The situation is far more complex than what is above but the argument of "driving on burning coal, ... like it or not" is a straw man at best in this context.

 

[ecarfan]

There is nothing "crazy" about installing PV even if "it's hard to make the numbers work out". The reason the planet is headed for ecological disaster is because too many people have only considered "the numbers" when making decisions. If PV is within your financial means (obviously you should not bankrupt yourself or take from your children's college fund so you can install PV) then please do it. You will not only feel good, but you will be doing good, for everyone. We have to stop burning coal (and all fossil fuels) or in the not too distant future we are literally doomed.

Solar isn't a great proposition where I live. Grid power (fueled primarily from coal) is so cheap here that it's hard to make the numbers work out in favor of solar panels on my roof.
But there is something psychologically appealing about the idea of driving my car on stored sunshine... knowing that I'm driving on burning coal doesn't feel quite as good.
Has anyone out there installed solar panels just for the feel-good aspects?! Am I crazy to be considering it?

 

[Khatsalano]

The economics in California work out amazingly well in PG&E territory, especially with the current net-metering rates with an EV-A plan. As far as doing it even though it'll cost me more money?

Yea, I'd probably still do it. We bought Teslas because we feel strongly about killing ourselves with atmospheric-induced climate change. Solar is a natural extension of solving the human-existential problem. If not you, then who? I have a 3.3kW system from SunPower and it's been amazing to drive on stored sunlight.

- K

 

[BriansTesla]

The WA state incentive for solar makes no sense and does nothing (or less) for the climate. We have the biggest hydro-electric dam on the continent (Grand Coulee dam). Not only is it the biggest hydro plant - it's the fifth biggest electrical plant in the U.S:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

So already 90% of WA's energy on a bad day comes from Hydro, Nuclear and Wind. If you want to participate in reducing the rest, you can call up PSE and tell them you want green energy, and they won't source you from coal or natural gas.

But putting up solar panels in a state that's not particularly known for sunshine, especially considering it doesn't actually replace that much dirty energy, is the ultimate in feel-gooddedness.

I charge my MS during the day at about 8KW so when the roof solar is putting out anything near its 10KW capacity, the electrons don't leave the premises. If the watts I don't use keeps water in the rivers for the fish, I'm fine with that. If it slows down a nuclear plant or a peaker plant or a coal plant somewhere I am happy to help do that too. If someone puts me in charge, there will be changes!

 

[Khatsalano]

Whether or not Nuclear is green, it certainly is carbon free...

I would hate to disappoint Cottonwood. He's always so right.

Nuclear is not carbon free either. A typical plant has massive locomotive-sized diesel generators as backups to keep critical systems online. Even in a perfect, non-refueling cycle, the backups are run regularly for required testing and it puts out massive amounts of CO2. Further, a good sized nuclear facility requires hundreds, and sometimes, several thousand personnel. The facility is in an at least 5-mile radius, protected zone, behind probably a larger "buffer" where there is a sole access road that is guarded. Everyone must drive to work, all logistics are imported, at a great carbon footprint (no, they don't all drive EVs). Then there is the nuclear waste cycle and where do you put the depleted fuel and its transport. Then at the end of the useful life, the decommissioning of a nuclear facility may well leave a larger carbon footprint than its construction in the first place.

So it's not green, and it's not carbon free. But it's actually a pretty decent legacy solution compared to retroactive alternatives. Going forward, however, c'mon Musketeers ... solar + storage is so obvious.

- K

 

[Cottonwood]

I would hate to disappoint Cottonwood. He's always so right.

Nuclear is not carbon free either. A typical plant has massive locomotive-sized diesel generators as backups to keep critical systems online. Even in a perfect, non-refueling cycle, the backups are run regularly for required testing and it puts out massive amounts of CO2. Further, a good sized nuclear facility requires hundreds, and sometimes, several thousand personnel. The facility is in an at least 5-mile radius, protected zone, behind probably a larger "buffer" where there is a sole access road that is guarded. Everyone must drive to work, all logistics are imported, at a great carbon footprint (no, they don't all drive EVs). Then there is the nuclear waste cycle and where do you put the depleted fuel and its transport. Then at the end of the useful life, the decommissioning of a nuclear facility may well leave a larger carbon footprint than its construction in the first place.

So it's not green, and it's not carbon free. But it's actually a pretty decent legacy solution compared to retroactive alternatives. Going forward, however, c'mon Musketeers ... solar + storage is so obvious.

Thanks for the compliments!

All of our "green," alternative energy sources have ancillary fossil fuel needs. (Even our beloved Teslas use a lot of carbon based energy for production and delivery.) For example, the solar installers drive their trucks to your house to install the panels. On a percentage basis, carbon based energy used to carbon-free energy produced, nuclear is probably comparable to most "green" sources.

Energy storage is expensive. Solar + Wind needs far less storage. With an upgraded grid, wind can get averaged over a large enough geographic region to be an almost constant source; wind also produces energy at night and on cloudy days.

Where energy storage can be very useful for solar is to soften what I call the "cloud edges." When clouds sweep over solar, power goes from on to off and off to on, very quickly. Just softening those edges to 10 or 20 minutes can allow normal grid controls to work well; that only takes 5 to 10 minutes of energy storage. The best place for this storage may be at the sub-station level.

My recommendation: Solar + Wind + Upgraded Grid + Storage

 

[Khatsalano]

My recommendation: Solar + Wind + Upgraded Grid + Storage

Yes. I think we need to start putting this on kindergarteners' t-shirts and ask them to pick a career path within this equation.