Solar

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I’m certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.[/quote]
I think what’s happening is, people like us are causing them to gouge those who can’t get solar. They have to recoup the revenue from somewhere. Not everyone can get solar (poorer areas, people w/ roof that’s facing bad directions, people living in condos, rentals, etc). There are a lot more people in those categories than people like us. So, be blessed that they chose to do it that way and you skirt paying your fair share instead of them charging a flat fee for transmission/grid use. After all, we don’t have backup battery to be completely off grid, so we’re still using their infrastructure, but we don’t have to pay for it.[/quote]

That’s a pretty honest comment AN.
I’m kinda pissed off that I need to pay more because I live in a condo.

I don’t know if you’ve been following solar in HI and NV but the utilities won’t allow more connections. They worry that solar migration will spell financial troubles. A new model will be needed to maintain the grid.

[meadandale]

I’m still surprised that the power companies still haven’t done the obvious thing: put rooftop solar on their customer’s homes. Customer pays normal rates and gets a small leasing cost similar to what cell towers do for property owners when they install transmitters.

The solar companies are doing this and they are making money. Ten years ago I predicted this was the future for the power companies, but much like the recording industry, they just keep dragging their feet and living in the past.

It reduces the need for new long haul transmission lines to build new central capacity and new plants. It also eliminates expensive permitting and land acquisition costs, environmental cleanup and decommissioning costs. It really seems like a no brainer…

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I’m certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.[/quote]
I think what’s happening is, people like us are causing them to gouge those who can’t get solar. They have to recoup the revenue from somewhere. Not everyone can get solar (poorer areas, people w/ roof that’s facing bad directions, people living in condos, rentals, etc). There are a lot more people in those categories than people like us. So, be blessed that they chose to do it that way and you skirt paying your fair share instead of them charging a flat fee for transmission/grid use. After all, we don’t have backup battery to be completely off grid, so we’re still using their infrastructure, but we don’t have to pay for it.[/quote]

I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don’t understand the short sighted business case here, that’s all.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don’t understand the short sighted business case here, that’s all.[/quote]
Again, I don’t see those who would be pushing over the fence and get solar will be that much. Again, I think the majority are in the group that can’t get solar (either physically or financially or just doesn’t make sense for them to, since they’re paying <$100/month in electricity). So, they can continue to increase the rate. My bet is, at some point, they'll start charging us for usage of the grid, then the math might no longer make sense for some.

[no_such_reality]

Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

[farbet]

Lack of Trump yard signs in the 92078 zip.
Any reason why?

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]LoL, I’m fully aware of that too. But energy mix isn’t the only reason.

[njtosd]

[quote=farbet]Lack of Trump yard signs in the 92078 zip.
Any reason why?[/quote]

I don’t see any yard signs anywhere. Why is this such a big issue? You started another thread about it . . . this seems a little like thread jacking. Is this Brian under another name??

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don’t understand the short sighted business case here, that’s all.[/quote]
Again, I don’t see those who would be pushing over the fence and get solar will be that much. Again, I think the majority are in the group that can’t get solar (either physically or financially or just doesn’t make sense for them to, since they’re paying <$100/month in electricity). So, they can continue to increase the rate. My bet is, at some point, they'll start charging us for usage of the grid, then the math might no longer make sense for some.[/quote] Time will tell for sure.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=AN][quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]LoL, I’m fully aware of that too. But energy mix isn’t the only reason.[/quote]

You’re right those smart meter infrastructure improvements cost money too. 😉

I went solar years ago as soon as the Cali started dictating the solution. Well and as long as the taxpayer was paying for 80% of it.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]

The CPUC is not exactly the voters. There is a corruption investigation.

[meadandale]

[quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]

I found this interesting…adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems…and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn’t work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/

[ocrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]

I found this interesting…adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems…and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn’t work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/%5B/quote%5D

EV Battery Prices: Looking Back A Few Years, & Forward Yet Again

Large scale battery for storage will gradually eliminate this problem, and eliminate the “imported” energy seen in light blue.

[meadandale]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=meadandale][quote=no_such_reality]Lol. You guys really don’t get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.[/quote]

I found this interesting…adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems…and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn’t work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/%5B/quote%5D

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/ev-battery-prices-looking-back-years-forward-yet/

Large scale battery for storage will gradually eliminate this problem, and eliminate the “imported” energy seen in light blue.[/quote]

I don’t think battery storage for the grid will ever be feasible unless costs come WAY down. They seem to be focusing on things like compressed air and other more mechanical methods of converting electricity back into stored energy rather than storing as electricity directly. The mechanical methods tend to be cheaper and have much higher cycle lifetimes.

[ocrenter]

[quote=meadandale]

I don’t think battery storage for the grid will ever be feasible unless costs come WAY down. They seem to be focusing on things like compressed air and other more mechanical methods of converting electricity back into stored energy rather than storing as electricity directly. The mechanical methods tend to be cheaper and have much higher cycle lifetimes.[/quote]

Battery storage will be part of the solution, just like the turbine solution you mentioned. Then there’s the timed incentive for charging as well with the gradual increase in EV percentage of overall fleet.

https://www.ft.com/content/a703e24a-8d4f-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b

[Author]

Posts