In Florida, you _have_ to be grid connected to have an occupancy permit. You are _not_ allowed to go off grid.
my minimum monthly charge is $21.69 with LCEC (Lee County Elec Coop)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Solar PV News
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- solar energy
my minimum monthly charge is $21.69 with LCEC (Lee County Elec Coop)
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
One detail I found interesting in the recent Texas outages was the absence of reports of people congregating.
I expect Tesla folk to be smarter. We can make a deal with Starbucks so that we can park at a grid connection spot, charge up $9/kWh for our battery energy, and sip ice Mochas in a highly efficient community setting.
SmartElectric
Active Member
My issue with all of this is less about me and more about the fact that it will flip the incentives for personal PV installation to be near zero. In an attempt to address equity issues with NEM, which I acknowledge are real and do require a thoughtful solution, they ironically are going to disincentivize customers who were marginally able to make the switch to PV. That doesn't sound terribly equitable. I can install my big middle finger array but middle class families crunching the numbers on their own energy independence are going to throw their hands in the air when they don't make a sound investment. Instead, they'll be stuck on the teat of the utility, paying rates the CPUC invariably will agree are fair.
I find it likely that these changes will modify the adoption rate of rooftop PV so as to jeopardize SB32's goals. Of course, the answer the utilities will have for this is likely that they are going to increase the utility solar blend to account for the decrease in rooftop PV installations. Wouldn't that be convenient..
There are competing goals here. Utility solvency and the grid's economic sustainability are important. NEM customers should bear their fair share of the costs and not overly burden those who cannot afford to make an installation. But we have the societal cost of carbon and other energy pollution, which disproportionately affects those of lower income, and removing the option for distributed solar puts greater burden on the grid. We need to encourage more PV, not less. It's entirely possible this will just force higher net worth individuals to make the shift to pure energy independence, which will put an even greater burden on those stuck with the grid.
I find it likely that these changes will modify the adoption rate of rooftop PV so as to jeopardize SB32's goals. Of course, the answer the utilities will have for this is likely that they are going to increase the utility solar blend to account for the decrease in rooftop PV installations. Wouldn't that be convenient..
There are competing goals here. Utility solvency and the grid's economic sustainability are important. NEM customers should bear their fair share of the costs and not overly burden those who cannot afford to make an installation. But we have the societal cost of carbon and other energy pollution, which disproportionately affects those of lower income, and removing the option for distributed solar puts greater burden on the grid. We need to encourage more PV, not less. It's entirely possible this will just force higher net worth individuals to make the shift to pure energy independence, which will put an even greater burden on those stuck with the grid.
Merrill
Merrill
I agree with ohmann, it is sad that the utilities market one thing and then do the opposite. Again monopolies out of control with no oversite.
mblakele
FSD Beta (99)
Isn't that because we* have given them the wrong incentives? As I understand it, today they earn guaranteed profits by building infrastructure, which encourages generation far from demand centers and large-scale transmission in between. Instead couldn't we reform utilities so that they profit from decarbonization and grid resiliency, and pay penalties otherwise?
* Well, PUC official appointed by our elected representatives.
Merrill
Merrill
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
AND lack of competition.
Tesla is a profit-driven company. The difference is that they exist in a landscape that requires them to be competitive to excel.
We, John-Q voter/taxpayer have allowed the CA utilities to be regionalized monopolies. Monopolies ALWAYS put profit first because there is ZERO competitive pressure.
Instead of "how can we regulate these companies better" (which they will always find a loophole around), we should be asking ourselves "how to we foster competition". Competition will FORCE these companies to become more efficient, and the consumer wins through better and lower-priced products.
EDIT - the problem faced is not one exclusive to CA, it's common throughout power companies in the US. CA is just the extreme example at this time.
Merrill
Merrill
If you live in California please visit the Solar Rights Alliance.org web site and get involved, we need to fight this utility monopoly.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
For now, off-grid is a lot more expensive for just about everybody compared to grid with every cost extravaganza a utility can concoct. However, that will change, and if the utilities do not learn to get along with their residential base soon, they will not get the opportunity again.
What is getting along ? It means learning to adapt to a decreasing revenue base by being able to shrink fixed costs. Lower CEO salary, a streamlined and efficient bureaucracy, no lobbying ... there is a long list. The utility argument that fixed costs are all lines and transformers is horse-*sugar*.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
As an aside, utilities are operating under the assumptions that on/off grid is a unitary choice, and that net metering is required for residential PV to be a cost savings for consumers. Both of those assumptions are going to fall, and soon.
I expect to put in PV soon (barring HOA shenanigans) and I will setup my home to consume close to 100% of my generation. Isolating my generation from the grid connection is not required for now, but it is not a big competitive barrier utilities can rely on.
I expect to put in PV soon (barring HOA shenanigans) and I will setup my home to consume close to 100% of my generation. Isolating my generation from the grid connection is not required for now, but it is not a big competitive barrier utilities can rely on.
would love to see all the details on how you plan to setup your home for close to 100% of generation. Unless you have gas heating, from what I am seeing, unless you put in stuff way way more than needed, meaning, the winter solar stinks, I just do not see how it is possible, again, unless you have gas heating.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I don't mean I will be functionally off-grid, I mean that I will trivialize net metering.
I have three (relatively) large energy sinks that are amenable to time shifting:
- Domestic Hot Water
- Home Cooling and Heating
- EV charging
You can rightly point out that a huge mass of homes do not have my advantages. My point is that utilities do not enjoy a high barrier to these advantages going forward: EVs are coming, big water tanks are largely accessible, and improved building codes are just a signature away, expected due to climate change. Way before people move en-masse to local home storage, they will find that improved bldg envelope is the cost effective way to deal with utility cost increases.
Last edited:
SmartElectric
Active Member
Sol-Ark makes a DC hybrid inverter that has a "meter zero" mode as per:
Sol-Ark All-In-One Pre-Wired Inverter Systems
Sol-Ark Pre-Wired Inverter System includes the Inverter and Charge Controller all in one unit. Start off with a grid-tie system and add backup battery storage down the line!
www.altestore.com
ie. It will measure home usage (CT on the main feed to house) and cap the energy fed to the breaker panel(s) such that none of it feeds the grid.
And one of it's modes :
This means it sends excess solar to a dump load (hot water pre-heating tank, water pump, pool heater) or the connected 48V battery system.
In this way, you are grid connected, but not exporting.
In my house, we use a heat recovery system for the drain water as well, which pre-heats the water for the main water heater, highly recommended @ $500.
Clean energy advocates are ready to do battle over California’s net energy metering program
The California Solar and Storage Association said it is urging regulators to prioritize consumer choice, energy reliability, and grid costs.
pv-magazine-usa.com
The goals were outlined by the California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA), which is pitting itself against the state’s three investor-owned utilities over what it said is the future of California’s rooftop solar market. CALSSA said the “battle” will take place at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in a regulatory decision later this year that will “make or break California’s continued leadership” in consumer solar at homes, apartments, schools, and farms. Proposals for changes to the state’s net energy metering (NEM) program were submitted to regulators on March 15.
Report outlines rooftop solar and storage for 75% of Puerto Rico’s power, and at a lower cost
Distributed solar and storage should be the focus for $9.6 billion in FEMA funds allocated for Puerto Rico’s grid reconstruction, says a new report based on independent analysis.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Adding solar and storage to every home in Puerto Rico, plus solar on commercial sites, could provide 75% of the territory’s electricity by 2035. And the cost of doing so could be lower than a base case that simply projects today’s grid and generation mix ahead to 2035, said a report from nonprofit groups Cambio and IEEFA (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis). Rooftop solar on houses could reach 2.7 GW, paired with 2.5 GW of storage, with a comparable amount of solar on commercial sites. “Minimal upgrades” to the distribution system would be required, the report said.
This highlights the fundamental problem for utilities. They are about to end up with a lot of stranded assets (just like fossil fuel companies). Their grid and fossil generators are going to have much less value. They are fighting to avoid becoming much smaller or irrelevant. That is the market signal. No regulation can fix their predicament and make them more profitable. They are toast.
Putting Solar Panels on California Canals Could Solve Two Crises at Once
A new analysis finds that covering canals in California with floating solar panels could save a lot of water and money while generating renewable energy. Doing so would generate up to 50% higher return on investment than installing those panels on the ground.
earther.gizmodo.com
“A lot of water gets evaporated just because we don’t put a lid on it,” McKuin said. “By covering canals with solar panels, we could save up to 63 billion gallons of water annually. It’s a lot of water. That’s roughly the amount of water needed to irrigate 50,000 acres of farmland, or to meet the residential needs of 2 million people.”
The paper didn’t calculate the amount of energy that all these floating panels would provide, but McKuin has done some back-of-the-envelope math of her own. “This isn’t information that’s in the paper, but I estimate that it would provide 13 gigawatts of power,” she said. For context, California regulators are pushing to install 20 gigawatts of additional renewable capacity across the state by 2030.
In Spring of 2015, this paper was published that suggested something similar. I looked it up once when we were driving north on I-5 past Harris Ranch. It occurred to me that there was a lot of evaporation, and I wondered if anyone had quantified it. Turns out, they had.Putting Solar Panels on California Canals Could Solve Two Crises at Once
A new analysis finds that covering canals in California with floating solar panels could save a lot of water and money while generating renewable energy. Doing so would generate up to 50% higher return on investment than installing those panels on the ground.
“A lot of water gets evaporated just because we don’t put a lid on it,” McKuin said. “By covering canals with solar panels, we could save up to 63 billion gallons of water annually. It’s a lot of water. That’s roughly the amount of water needed to irrigate 50,000 acres of farmland, or to meet the residential needs of 2 million people.”
The paper didn’t calculate the amount of energy that all these floating panels would provide, but McKuin has done some back-of-the-envelope math of her own. “This isn’t information that’s in the paper, but I estimate that it would provide 13 gigawatts of power,” she said. For context, California regulators are pushing to install 20 gigawatts of additional renewable capacity across the state by 2030.
Similar threads
