Slashdot Mirror

http://www.dsireusa.org/docume...

The 46 red states all require utilities to give a 1 to 1 credit for electricity usage, and have to buy up to the limit for each of the states.

Either you work in the utility industry in a different country or one of the 4 states that hasn't adopted the rules you are talking about.

Every licensed installer in my state charges 6-10x the wholesale panel price and will only do a fixed bid install that is about 4x the T+M labor cost.

Citation? Which state? My Anecdote: I walked into the solar place in my town and the first thing they proposed when I laid out my situation was that I do the install myself. About the only labor I couldn't do myself would be the final hookup. They'd provide the plans and instructions.

I'm not seeing any requirements to use a licensed installer here. It might be a state/city requirement.

In effect I can put up the 100 or so pannels to meet my current needs for 30k including skilled labor yet the cheapest installer it looking for 100+ with the government programs taking it back down to 80 meaning they are making 70+k on whats quoted as a 2 day job with a 5 man crew.

100 panels? How much electricity do you use? 25 would cover the average household in the USA(10,837 kWh/year, each panel producing 437 kWh/year, even in the middle of the country). Standard panels today are 250-300 watts each. Even the cheapest pallet of 20 300 watt modules will run you $5,270, or $26,350 in panels alone, without racking or inverters(~$4.5k). Checking other online sites shows similar pricing.

As such, wanting it done for $30k means the workers would be doing it for free. The $70k worth of 'labor' does seem inappropriate.

and they do not get retail prices, they get wholesale prices

That depends on where you're located. In some places you only get wholesale, in others you get paid retail, and in some you can even get more than retail (TVA pays retail + $0.04/kWh for solar for the first 10 years after a system is installed: http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=TN02F).

In addition, how you get paid also varies. Some places only allow you to offset your usage with what you generate for that current billing cycle. Other let you build up credits that can be used to offset your usage for a greater period of time, and others will actually pay you for your excess power.

I happen to live in an area that pays retail and lets you save credits for 12 months to offset your usage.

According to the information I find about Arizona net metering, the power you generate offsets your bill (at retail rates) until your bill is zero; after that you are paid wholesale for any excess:

"Net metering is accomplished using a single bi-directional meter. Any customer net excess generation (NEG) will be carried over to the customer's next bill at the utility's retail rate, as a kilowatt-hour (kWh) credit. Any NEG remaining at the customer’s last monthly bill in a calendar year will be paid to the customer, via check or billing credit, at the utility’s avoided cost payment. "

If this is really true, then the utility is making a profit reselling the power you generate. So what's the basis for this fee they want to charge?

The Arizona net metering policy is already very protective of utilities' interests. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=AZ24R&re=1&ee=0

System size can't be larger that 125% of a customer's normal use and customer/generators only get paid at the avoided cost rate, not the retail rate for power generated beyond their annual use.

In New Mexico, First Solar is selling power at 5.79 cents a kilowatt-hour http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/first-solar-may-sell-cheapest-solar-power-less-than-coal.html so it seems hard to believe that this campaign is anything but a way for the Koch brothers to shake down APS.

California. "The CPUC set the compensation rate at the 12-month average spot market price for the hours of 7 am to 5 pm for the year in which the surplus power was generated." The "spot market price" refers to the price at which the utility buys energy, not the price at which they sell it to consumers. So all you're really getting is the same price they would have spent to buy that same power from someone else.

Also, before you install solar go after the low-hanging fruit. Most of your home energy costs come from climate control/heating-cooling/HVAC, so the easiest and cheapest step to take is to 'seal the envelope of the house,' ie. max out your insulation, swap out your windows for energy efficient ones, install automatic insulated roll-down shutters that close at night, put on wall sheathing to isolate your wall joists from the siding/exterior to minimize heat transfer, and insulate your floors as well to avoid heat leaching out through the basement.

The next step is to swap your HVAC for an efficient system. A ground-source heat pump is far and away the most proven and efficient system there is; it heats you in the winter and cools you in the summer. Couple a GSHP with a radiant floor heating system, which is the most efficient delivery system there is, and you'll not only save gobs of money but be so comfortable you'll wonder why you didn't do it sooner. The determining cost factor is what type of subsoil lies beneath your house; if you're sitting on solid rock you're out of luck, but if you have at least 15 ft. of dirt/clay/gravel you're in business.

The third step is to swap out your appliances for energy star ones. It won't help you much if you bought your stuff in the last 5 years, since chances are they already are energy star, but if you're still rocking a 70's era suite of machines you can see significant savings.

There are all kinds of incentives for the first three steps, much more than for wind/solar right now. And there are far more contractors out there who know how to implement them without any special training or markup. You can get competitive bids. And I would do it now, since 1 in 4 contractors is out of work or underemployed right now. It's a buyer's market.

After you've done all those things, you'll be much savvier about the process and in a stronger position to get a good bid on solar. And you'll need it less. And if you completed the first three steps, you may find that installing solar and micro-wind could put you in the plus-energy column, which means the utility has to send you a check every month. That accelerates your break-even time.

Good luck!

I have not done in myself so I can't make a list of don't do's. I found this site which talks about things I've heard are important. http://www.solarexpert.com/instroof5.html I'd suggest getting several estimates now. Pick the lowest one, take 30% off and then let each contractor know that you would be ready to go forward when the price falls that far. Here are your incentives: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?getRE=1?re=undefined&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=IA Doesn't look like anything important is expiring but check yourself.

No such competition exists for things like electricity and water (at least in most cities). For those products, you can neither decide to purchase from a competitor nor decide not to purchase at all.

Well, you can "kinda sorta" - you could build an outhouse in your backyard or a full septic tank in your backyard, provided your local building code allows it. You could install a rainwater collector, filtration system, or simply purchase what water you need from an alternate supplier (though at the cost per gallon, that's suicidal). You could, provided the groundwater quality in your area isn't shit and again that local building codes would allow it, even dig your own well and install your own pump.

Some places have outlawed new septic systems, instead they require hook ups to the municipal system. At the same tyme though composing toilets are being used more and more. Some places have also outlawed rainwater collection. In Colorado for instance they are illegal. Legally you, people, do not have rights to the water that falls on their land. The state has all rights. Which it gave away when it agreed to the Colrado River Compact. Even though the river doesn't run through California, CA now has "rights" to some of it's water. As does Mexico.

You could install a gas/propane/etc generator, or solar cells and some battery storage, if you want to try to go without being "plugged in" to the electric grid

Go Off the grid.

Of course, good luck managing to do this in any major city or if you have kids, unless you're Amish or Mennonite. Raise kids in that environment, and the local constabulary will be up your ass with "child welfare" authorities in tow, looking for any excuse they can manufacture to take your kids away and force you to pay up for local utilities...

Actually more and more places are getting off the grid friendly, as well as homeschooling friendly. Many states and local governments offer help such as rebates for alternative energy systems, DSIRE is a database of what is offered.

Falcon

Is it cheaper to build out your own power generation than it is to pay for the overhead and profits of the grid power suppliers?

It absolutely is, where I live.

I will give an example from my state, New Mexico, which is very renewable energy friendly.

1. You get a federal rebate of 30% of the total installation cost. This applies to everywhere in the US.
2. NM offers an additional 10%. That's a total of 40% off the cost, refunded on your taxes.
3. NM has exempted renewable energy generators from sales tax.
4. PNM, the electric company, has been mandated to produce 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. They will pay renewable energy credits to small generators to do this for them. And they pay them the highest rate per kwh ($0.13)
5. PNM not only pays the highest rate, but they pay you EVEN IF YOU USE THE ENERGY because it's infrastructure they don't have to install, and energy they don't have to pump. And it helps them meet the requirement of 20% renewable by 2020.
6. By using what you produce, you generally drop into a lower tier, for the excess energy you do draw off the grid, which is around $0.07/kwh up to 200 kwh per month.
7. If you outproduce what you use, PNM will send you a check for the difference (or carry it over if it's small).

Even more bizarre is if the cost of electricity goes up, this counts as an investment. You can save more on future energy if the price goes up. It was one of the better investments you could've made in california, as the price of energy went up an average of 7% per year over the past several years. Even if you get a loan to do this, you can actually beat the interest rate.

You get similar benefits from using wind, but my research is in solar. For solar energy, it will pay itself back in under 10 years for the total outlay for the average customer. I'm installing a system in a couple weeks, and I believe it'll repay itself in around 9 years. If things work as expected, I will go from a $65/mo electric bill to about $10. And the expected life of solar is 30+ years, so this should be profitable for some 20 years after it's paid for itself.

Wind takes a lot more maintenance and has a lower expected lifespan due to moving parts, but it's still pretty good in windy areas, especially if you invest in one of the larger turbines which has much better efficiency.

You can see what incentives your state has for renewable energy. You might be surprised.

I'm sure you guys looked into this but... most state governments have a lot of incentives, both tax breaks and grants, for using alternative energy.

There are a lot of sites on it:
http://www.dsireusa.org/
http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/

Some even go so far as to eliminate 100% of property tax for businesses abiding by environmental regulations. They also have pretty big grants for the initial installation.

I'm pretty confident the electric companies also want you to produce power and put it back on the grid. They still make money and don't have to produce as much power.

I agree though, I hope power goes more distributed over the next few decades. Not only government and power companies making renewable sources, but individuals taking on the responsibility. I think it'll happen as it becomes more and more cost effective.

The problem with equalizing subsidies is that its impossible to do.

That's one reason why subsidies are bad, they favor some things over others, whether good or bad.

Subsidies for PV are universally higher than for wind. There is a national database of subsidies for renewable energy - you can check any state. DESIRE is the name I believe.

Yea, I've got DSIRE bookmarked though I haven't gone through all the states and what they provide. The federal incentives listed don't have either solar or wind individually. Individual states list solar and wind separately and together. However it doesn't say what the incentives are or how much is offered. The individual links would have to be clicked then all of them added either by hand or with a spreadsheet. To go through every state and add them up could take some hours and I doubt many people including you have done that.

Falcon

Larger turbines are more efficient

Maybe not, bigger isn't always better, more efficient.

However it is, nuclear power would not be profitable and Wall Street would not pay for it if government did not subsidize it.

You do realize that you can say the exact same thing for wind/solar, right?

While solar and wind are subsidized, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency has the incentives per state, it's individuals or those who have them installed who get the subsidies. And those subsidies aren't that much though it may cut the cost in half. Large corporations don't get them. If it was me, and I hope to install PVs myself, I could choose what company I buy the panels from.

The only power generation types that get less subsidies than nuclear is NG and dirty coal. Solar and wind generally get at least an order of magnitude more subsidy than nuclear.

Only if you don't cut the limited liability nuclear has. No other type of energy gets limited liability. Now if instead nuclear power plants had to pay for insurance then the price per kilowatthour would be high I bet.

Falcon

We are never going to get one fifth of our energy from renewable in two years in this state. It ain't going to happen. Californians are under this delusion that passing a law can change reality. We're rather stupid that way.

I wondered if it was instead "20% of new capacity" or something like that, but no, it really does look like it's 20% of retail sales of electricity (I suppose industrial has some different mandate (like none?)).

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA25R&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1

              California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their sales of eligible renewable-energy resources by at least 1 percent of retail sales per year, so that 20% of their retail sales are served with eligible renewable energy resources by 2010.

Check http://dsireusa.org/ to find your own state's initiatives.

-Rick

That was then, this is now. PV panel prices have gone up significantly since that study.

According to "Tech Review" because of new silicon production fabs prices could drop by 50% by 2010.

His installed cost for materials alone was just over $10/watt.

Did he check for incentives, subsidies, or tax credits? DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, is a database of what each state offers in the US.

I posted this above, but figured you'd see it if I replied to you here: http://www.dsireusa.org/

Layne

And then, there is this: http://www.dsireusa.org/

Covers all sorts of programs -- from rebates on more efficient A/C or solar installations to low interest loans for energy improvements.....and a lot in between.

Layne

Correct.

Also important to note, here in the US, is that many states (such as PA) have laws that require electric companies to comply with residential renewable energy metering (aka "backward metering"). This backward metering comes at NO cost to the residential owner to ensure that the meters on their home are capable of accurately recording power sent back on-grid. There are also laws in place that state the electric company must pay the residential owner for the power they generate back to the grid (by subtracting it from their electric bill, etc).

Also, please, please, please look at your state incentives, rebates, offers, etc before you make a decision on renewable energy for your home. Go to http://www.dsireusa.org/ to learn more about your state's assistance and laws.

The downfall of solar power generation back to the grid that many consumers do not take notice of, until it is too late, is that the price per KW they generate during the day is substantially cheaper than evening power costs. What does this mean? It means that the electric company will pay you an (almost) absolutely ridiculously low price for KW you generate and return to the grid during the day. Why? Because during the height of your power production with solar (middle of the day), the power draw from the grid is not at it highest, therefore they have surplus. In the end, you will still be paying for grid power in the evenings. Any alternatives? Yes. Obtain a battery bank and store/use your energy when you need it and keep the extra energy your system generates for yourself. Because the chances are that selling it back to the electric companies will not save you any more than you storing/using it yourself in the evening.

And a sudden nation wide demand for solar power would do nothing to the price of silicone?

As it is now there's research into using materials other than silicon for PVs. With higher demand for silicon this will allow more money to be put into research on others.

Even if the price on solar units stayed relatively stable, you're still looking at probably $6k for an integrated roof system

Seeing as how CA has one of the highest cost for electricity $6K isn't much. Late last year one /.er said he pays $300 a month for electricity, one year's electrical bills would cover that. However state and national incentives will cover part of the cost of the system. DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, lists the incentives for California. For instance California Solar Initiative - Photovoltaics Incentives aims "to provide more than $3 billion in incentives for solar-energy projects with the objective of providing 3,000 MW of solar capacity by 2017." For residential systems below 100kw it provides $2.50 per watt. Of course $6000 may not be enough to pay for a system that produces all of it's own power. Besides the PVs a stand alone system will require batteries for energy storage while it's not sunny.

And a sudden nation wide demand for solar power would do nothing to the price of silicone?

As it is now there's research into using materials other than silicon for PVs. With higher demand for silicon this will allow more money to be put into research on others.

Even if the price on solar units stayed relatively stable, you're still looking at probably $6k for an integrated roof system

Seeing as how CA has one of the highest cost for electricity $6K isn't much. Late last year one /.er said he pays $300 a month for electricity, one year's electrical bills would cover that. However state and national incentives will cover part of the cost of the system. DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, lists the incentives for California. For instance California Solar Initiative - Photovoltaics Incentives aims "to provide more than $3 billion in incentives for solar-energy projects with the objective of providing 3,000 MW of solar capacity by 2017." For residential systems below 100kw it provides $2.50 per watt. Of course $6000 may not be enough to pay for a system that produces all of it's own power. Besides the PVs a stand alone system will require batteries for energy storage while it's not sunny.

And a sudden nation wide demand for solar power would do nothing to the price of silicone?

As it is now there's research into using materials other than silicon for PVs. With higher demand for silicon this will allow more money to be put into research on others.

Even if the price on solar units stayed relatively stable, you're still looking at probably $6k for an integrated roof system

Seeing as how CA has one of the highest cost for electricity $6K isn't much. Late last year one /.er said he pays $300 a month for electricity, one year's electrical bills would cover that. However state and national incentives will cover part of the cost of the system. DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, lists the incentives for California. For instance California Solar Initiative - Photovoltaics Incentives aims "to provide more than $3 billion in incentives for solar-energy projects with the objective of providing 3,000 MW of solar capacity by 2017." For residential systems below 100kw it provides $2.50 per watt. Of course $6000 may not be enough to pay for a system that produces all of it's own power. Besides the PVs a stand alone system will require batteries for energy storage while it's not sunny.

You're not one of them, and you haven't performed any calculations.

Wow! You know everything about me and what I've done. NOT!!! Actually I did do the calculation, back in the '90s. I took my electrical usage back then, sized a solar system for that usage and calculated the price. Then I took the price of the energy I used and the payback period was about 15 years. Since then things have only improved. Energy efficiency has increased and prices has come down a lot. Adding all of the rebates and tax credits and the price should be a lot lower. First thing, and most efficient, is to cut energy usage. I paid around $15 for the first Compact Florescent Light bulb I bought. Last year I bought a 3 pack of CFLs for less than $10, and I have CFLs in all light fixtures but one and I rarely use that one. With the exception of my clock radio and my juicer all of the electrical appliances I have now use less energy than the appliance the new ones replaced, yes I look at labels and look on the net for energy usage stats for appliances. So my energy usage is now lower than it was. Next, because of the web I was able to find out that at least some utilities offer credit for energy efficiency measures. For instance some of them will credit or refund part of the costs of adding insulation. On top of that some states now have net metering, in which the person is paid for the energy they put into the system. Next, the feds and some states offer incentives such as tax credits for improving energy efficiency. DSIRE, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Effiency is a database of what each state offers in incentives. Just click on the state. For instance Minnesota, the state I live in now, will pay $2/watt DC (which goes up to $2.25/watt DC after July 1, 2008) for a solar system up to $20,000.

With increased efficiency, reduced costs, as well as the rebates and tax credits I'm sure that 15 years I calculated years ago can be dropped to a 10 year payback period if not even lower with inflation.

So, while I haven't done a calculation lately I have, unlike what you say, done a rough calculation.

Vermont limits the amount of net metering in the state no more than 1% of peak capacity http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive 2.cfm?Incentive_Code=VT02R&state=VT&CurrentPageID= 1&RE=1&EE=1, while at the same time participating in the Northeast regional climate agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps the issues arising at Vermont Yankee will prompt Vermont to follow New Jersey and remove the cap, or at least follow Maryland and California and raise it.
--
Rent solar power for you home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Depending on where you live, there may be such a law. Look at the access laws column in this table: http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/reg1.cfm?&Cu rrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1. Everyone should be supporting the SOLAR access legislation now in Congress: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/65431047 0
--
Simple solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This will depend on state law. Some laws appear to assure you access to the Sun, others require you to write up an agreement with your neighbor which then has the force of an easement. Some states have no laws. You can check your state in this table: http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/reg1.cfm?&Cu rrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1. Look in the column labled "Access Laws."
--
Silicon! It's what's for power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

There are already laws on the books in a number of states that can help to protect landowner's rights to solar energy access. In NYC, local zoning is controlling: http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/tabsrch.c fm?state=NY&type=Access&back=regtab&Sector=S&Curre ntPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1 Most solar access laws were passed after the oil shocks of the seventies.

Senator Menendez of NJ has introduced federal legislation to ensure access rights: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/s tory?id=47928
--
Rent solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

California's Access law is one of the better ones. They also exist in
Arizona (tested in court)
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Indiana (planning zoning=HOA?)
Maryland (after 1980)
Massachusetts (specifically including in the yard)
Nevada
and North Carolina (Chapel Hill only)
As can be checked here: http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/index.cfm?&C urrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1. They basically help with HOAs for the most part.

http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-use rs-selling-solar.html Senator Menendez (NJ) has introduced a bill in the Senate which has also be introduced in the House too (Cardoza CA and Ferguson NJ) that would do the same kind of thing http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAGO325.htm nation wide.
--
Save with Solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

New Jersey is the exception, not the rule.

Here's the list of individual utilities and their policies - some are limited to the first 25 customers.

But, this is not completely free. There is a $500 deposit once you approve the design of the system.

One thing that confuses people about how this works is the idea of net metering. The system is designed to meet 100% of you power use over a year. It is not designed to meet you peak power use. Under net metering you build up kWh credits when the Sun shines and you are not using all of the power, and you use those credits at night or on cloudy days. The key thing is that the credits last for a year so the seasonal differences in power production and power usage can match up annually. There is good information on net metering laws at http://www.dsireusa.org/.

At least three shashdot users are selling rental contracts for this company and if there are more please let me know so I can add them to this list http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html.

Please remember that this is a startup and it is going to take time to get going. No money will be collected until the panels are ready for installation!

Based on the website http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive 2.cfm?Incentive_Code=TX03F&state=TX&CurrentPageID= 1&RE=1&EE=1
it appears your property taxes are 100% waived.

However is that just your city propery tax or does it include ALL property taxes such as school, MUD, TIRS, etc?

My property tax bill is $6k-$7k a year. Energy costs for cooling my house can run $500/mo in the hotter months. With a projected
net benefit of $9k a year this would pay for itself in less than 10 years even assuming
no other tax breaks, selling excess power or getting a grant to offset purchase costs.

Staying at home and working is not so bad. I didn't get this from slashdot but it is an excellent resource that I use for targeting my marketing: http://www.dsireusa.org/
Click on a state, look under Rules, Regulations & Policies for net metering rules.

You can also look on my website http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar so see utility rates.
Click on the map then click on a state. If you see the utility listed you can do net metering there.

"Don't sever your connection. If you have any surplus energy, the supplier will pay you for it."

This is true in states with net metering laws. You can see a good summary of state by state net metering rules at http://www.dsireusa.org/.

Ten states have not yet got with program though I hear West Virginia is coming around.
----
Disclosure: I sell solar power (see my home page)

What is the 4-KS-21P? It's a battery rated for extreme deep cycle operations. I used it because it didn't state '7 year lifespan'(at an unknown usage pattern), it's rated at 3,200 50% power cycles.

Ok, thanks

Oh, I'll admit that batteries have improved, it's just that they're still an additional expense over just generating the power. I've looked at the systems myself.

They may be an additional expense but unless they not properly maintained they only need to be replaced every 10 to 20 years. Being hooked up to the grid though is an ongoing expense. Also, though I didn't mention it earlier as I just now recalled, the expenses of putting in a solar or wind system can be used to offset income taxes. DSIRE has a db of the incentives each state offers. There is also a federal incentive tax credit, though I don't recall if that one has elapsed yet or when it does elapse.

Minimum cost occurs at about 80 feet, with windspeeds of 12.26 mph, producing an average 162.8 kWh/month worth $11.40. The tower at that height costs $2000. Payback time, ignoring interest, is 27.79 years. That's not economical.

A couple of things were left out. One is inflation, excepting maintainance, all of the costs are upfront and once paid for it doesn't need to be paid for again. Power from the grid though always raises. Say you pay $.10 pe kwh now, in ten years you may be paying $1. Okay ten tyme as much may be radical but the point is that if you gemerate your own electricity your energy was paid in the beginning and you don't pay more later but if you get your power from the grid you'll always be paying even when prices rise. The second think overlooked are rebates or tax credits. Governments, both federal and many states offer tax credits. DSIRE lists what is offered in each state in the US.

The biggest thing a person that's thinking of generating the power they use can do though is replacing the things that use power with energy effiecent replacements. Those 75 watt bulbs replace them with 15 watt cfls, compact florescent lights. The old washing machine and dryer or frig, replace them with a new one that has a good Energy Star rating. The idea being you want negawatts, energy conserved and not produced, rather than "new" methods to produce more megawatts of energy.

You're interested in installing a wind genie? Have you checked into Home Power magazine ? Also, though "Solar" is in the name, Solar Today also has some articles on wind genies.

Why not check in with Xcel or check your friend google. Of course, if you have this calc, that implies that you live here and surely you read DP or RMN which runs articles about this at least once a year. (the DP shows 11.5 years for one house and shows you the calcs with the state incentives in there).

We'd need some sort of subsidy to get average homeowners and businesses to slap PV cells on their roofs in any significant quantity, and several states do not have them.

Here's a map of states with incentives: The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE). I didn't see a list of states, you're supposed to clink on a state to see what the state has, and I wasn't about to clink on all 51. Yes 51 as they include US territories as well.

[...] The question is what to do about it. We can: (1) Totally ignore it. (2) Put our entire economy on hold.

3)Or anything in between.(my emphasis)

4)To determine what we should do requires a lot more information than we actually have. (my emphasis) [...]

Well ... option 1) is what the US have been doing for the past 10 years or so. Satisfied with the results? Option 2) has been cited all along to argue that it made no sense to a) find out if there really was a danger, b) why actually doing anything about it was out of the question anyway, and c) all this talk about climate was a load of bunkum purveyed by starry eyed doo-gooders and jealous pinko's out to rob us of our economic leadership anyway.

So I'm very pleased to see that the poster actually caught on to option 3) "anything in-between", despite the traditional catch-all excuse for doing nothing voiced in the same breath under 4). Tradition is hard to shake off, I know, but it can be very misplaced. There may be lots of residual questions relating the connection between global warming and catastrophic climate change, but why would we want to wait until all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted? What would that gain us? At most it would tell us that some measures would be unnecessary, allowing us to save some effort and some money. Great, but is that worth the risk of missing out on a hard or soft window of opportunity w.r.t. climate change? Personally I think not, but that's just my opinion.

I put it to you that being as energy-efficient as feasible is the obvious thing to do. It may not be a total solution, but it helps. Let others (e.g. the government) worry about the large-scale issues (after all that's what they're paid for) ... but make sure that they _do_ worry about it and don't pass it off as "counter to our economic interest". But being a little more energy-efficient is something that all of us can do, starting today. Both at an individual and at a national level. Not just because it would reduce CO2 emissions that would otherwise take place, and hence contribute to one of the probable causes of global warming, but also because our main energy source, mineral oil, is an increasingly scarce resource. And one which (in my personal opinion) currently is way too cheap in the US.

The only additional information you'd need is: how do I identify and implement measures that make sense from an economic, practical, and technical point of view?

On an individual level there are lots things (ranging from small to ambitious) that can be done in and about the home. Home-owners, renters, and small businesses can find detailed information on how to save energy (and money) here: http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/vh.shtml.

There are government subsidies (see http://www.dsireusa.org/) for energy-saving measures, that can reduce the financial burden of implementing energy-saving measures for businesses and individuals.

What more information would you need to get started?

It's only worth it in California, really. Few other states have the incentives or the climate to make this worthwhile.

Here's a table of financial incentives by state. It lists them by Federal, private, state, utility, and local incentives. While pv may not be practical in some locations there are a number of financial incentives available that cover more than just pv.

If you really want to isolate the system look into installing a photovalitile roof system. Not only can you keep your whole house up and running during power outages, you can reduce your monthly power bill. ;) And those system, while still a challange to get OKed by the building inspector, can get federal and state funding, tax incentives, and even cash from your power company.

See http://www.dsireusa.org/ for more info on your local photo volatile power system incentives

-Rick

Counties in California are prohibited from increasing your property tax assessment due to the added value of installed solar equipment.

And, from a more authoritative source,

Summary: According to the California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 73, when assessing property for property tax purposes, active solar energy systems installed between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2006 are not subject to property taxes. Active solar energy system means a system that uses solar devices, which are thermally isolated from living space or any other area where the energy is used, to provide for the collection, storage, or distribution of solar energy. Active solar energy system does not include solar swimming pool heaters or hot tub heaters. Active solar energy systems may be used for any of the following: domestic, recreational, therapeutic, or service water heating; space conditioning; production of electricity; process heat; and solar mechanical energy.

$5 - 7 / W (installed) would be pretty low for residential; figure, honestly, more like $6.50 - $8. But twisted pair is right; you can frequently get half or more off - I recommend DSIREfor a good list.

Here's hopefully a clarification of all the below, from someone who works on net metering and interconnection a solid number of hours per week...

Equipment for interconnection and backfeed into the grid are governed by UL and, more relevantly, IEEE standards. (742 and 1547, respectively.)

These have fairly elaborate specifications for, as you said, not hitting the ground protection equipment, going into non-export mode (within a certain number of milliseconds) if the grid trips off, or if the current frequency or reactive power or a variety of other things vary outside certain parameters. Most utilities also require you to have an external, lockable disconnect (for instance, for if linemen are working outside your house on a segemnt of line that's still giving you good enough power that the inverter hasn't tripped you off. (they sensibly treat power lines the same way you treat working on guns - be 100% sure it's unloaded, and then be 100% sure you treat it as though it's loaded.)

These technical standards are fairly well established by the community of power engineers to be more than sufficiently safe, and we're seeing progress in their implementation: the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, for instance, has issued a model standard for their use.

However, it's far from uniform nationwide; utilities are used to implementing their own idiosyncratic rules for every part of their grid, and this (testing and retesting the same inverters in enery state, making them programmable to comply with Podunk Utility Co's individual requirements, etc.,) has become a major cost obstacle for the use of what's termed "distributed generation."

It does vary from state to state and utility to utility; while they *are* required under the Public Utility Holding Company Act or the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (don't remember which it is) to buy your power back from you, that's only at wholesale (ca. 2 cents per kWH,) whereas if you're truly net metering (and single-meter, spin-it-backwards net metering is something literally thousands of solar and small wind users legally do every day), you can get 7 - 14 cents. An easy way to check all of these, state by state, is the DSIRE website.

As for the solar energy payback timeand toxicity,which I'm frustratingly sure someone will bring up in this thread, those are essentially canards that "seem right" to those who haven't really looked into it but maybe heard it ten years ago, but don't hold up to empirical scrutiny.

This link from the DOE shows various incentives in different states:

Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy

That includes Federal Incentives

This link from the DOE shows various incentives in different states:

Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy

That includes Federal Incentives

The actual number is 100 miles squared, which too many people take as 100 square miles. Not the same. (In fact, I have been personally misquoted as saying the latter.

That said, it's pretty clear why the utilities haven't done it...Space has not been the issue with solar panels for 15 years now. Plenty of unused roof space, brownfields, etc., etc.

It's cost...here's your math.

Bulk solar panels go for ca. $2.90 / Watt anymore, making for a residential turnkey full system cost of a little over $6.50 (say $6 commercial.) So, a 30-year lifetime electricity cost of maybe $.22 / kWh , (less for commercial - better tax depreciation treatment.)

Now, happily, we compete on the meter side, so we're competing with $.07 - $.13 /kWh instead of the $.02 that the wind people have to generate. And those prices keep going up (by perhaps 5% per year,) while ours come down (by ca. 5% per year,) but you're still not making that money back without a state or utility incentive. Check DSIRE.

With current technology cost trends, that will slowly stop being the case for individuals in the US with high electricity bills over about the next five to eight years...

Have had it for a year, and learned a lot about them.

There are three hybrids being sold right now:

- Honda Civic Hybrid
- Honda Insight
- (2003) Toyota Prius

The Hondas use a gas engine as their primary engine with an electric engine (which doubles as a generator during braking) as a secondary source of acceleration. Think of this arrangement as a gas engine with a massive-battery-powered electric supercharger. If the electric engine fails, the gas engine will still get you there -- it just accelerates slower.

The Prius is the other way around -- its primary engine is electric, and a secondary gas engine gives it the acceleration. In the Prius, it is possible to drive (with very little gas pedal pressure) on electric alone -- something the Prius owners call "Zen driving." If the gas engine fails, you can still drive on the electric.

Reliability:
I know people who own both a Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) and a 2003 Prius. I personally own the HCH. I would have no hesitation in buying one again. I average 54 MPG in the summer, and 45 MPG in the winter. Range is ~600 miles per tank; I drive 50 miles a day, and fill up twice a month. I have heard that it is possible to get ~700 miles/tank in a Prius, but have never got a first hand report of that.

The Honda had one early bug with deep, cold weather -- very occasionally, the electric system would shut down and not restart until the car was shut down and restarted. A flash of the computer firmware fixed it. Many people reported this problem. It also had an issue with a squeak in a support pillar, fixed by shimming with a business card. Maintenance visits are scheduled for every 10000 miles. Gas mileage is better on the highway (51 mpg) than the city (49 mpg).

The 2003 Prius has had more problems. Issues were with "highway wandering" -- it feels like the car wants to migrate around the road -- and shaking of the steering wheel at low speeds. Cause: the entire power steering rack needed to be replaced. There's also the gas engine failure called the "Big Hand" that's fixed with a similar car reboot, but it's caused by the Accelerator Pedal Assembly needing to be replaced. Many people report that they've had both of these problems. Maintenance is more frequent at 7,500 miles. Gas mileage is better in the city (51 mpg) than the highway (49 mpg).

I don't know anyone who drives a Honda Insight. Supposedly they still make ~1500 of them a year, but rumor has it that Honda is going to be dropping them.

Near-term and Farther-out Models:
The Prius has been out longer than the HCH, and is getting a technological refresh in 2004. The 2003 Prius and the HCH are both 4-seater compacts, but the 2004 Prius will be a mid-size, with better mileage (59 city, 51 highway) and better acceleration (0-60 in 10 instead of 12). There is currently a waiting list for them.

Cars/Trucks/SUVs due to be released as hybrids in 2004:

Honda Accord,
Honda CR-V,
Ford Escape

2004 or 2005:
Chevy Silverado
Saturn Vue
GMC Suburban

Here's an in-depth look at Hybrid technology from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Google HTML translation here).

Here's the best description of what it's like to drive one.

There is a federal tax deduction of $2000 for buying a new hybrid. Several states also offer their own tax deductions or credits -- check here to look them up. Some states (but not all) also let you drive them in their high occupancy lanes, even though you may only have one driver in it.

Oh, by the way -- I know that the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrids are

Thanks for the backup on this one.

While I don't necessarily agree that regulation is the answer, it's a simple matter of ethics.

De-regulation wasn't really de-regulation. It was RE-regulation. The rules simply changed, and there became many more of them, one of which was that no new generating plants could be built. Why the hell they decided this was beyond me. Most of these generators were built "way back when" before the age of computers and ubiquitous use of air conditioning. PECO Energy became the most expensive electricity in the nation after PA "de-regulated" the electricity industry. I pay almost $0.16 per kWh, which is ridiculous by any standard. That money is used to pay for electricity that is practically given away to neighboring producers like PP&L and ConEd.

Anyway...

You'd be AMAZED at what percentage of all generated power is dissipated in either a computer or an air conditioner/chiller/etc. 100 million computers at 200 watts each is 20 BILLION watts. 20 GIGAwatts. That's the capacity of more than 20 average-sized nuclear reactors. Limerick here in PA has two reactors each capable of about 1.134 (I was really hoping it was 1.21, really I was!) gigawatts.

Here's a Link to a list of all U.S. Nuclear facilities and their statistics and capacities.

And here is a link to a list of all the reactor statuses showing they're loaded to the teeth - almost all of them at 100%.

The U.S. Department of Energy maintains lots of useful information about the power grids in the United States and how they are running. There are also publicly available status reports on each generation facility.

One graph on the DoE site showed that generation capacity hasn't increased at all since about 1992 (when Clinton took office, what a surprise... bastard killed the military AND our power infrastructure... but that's another thread)...

It's not surprising that this happened since we've been increasing generation rapidly due to the deployment of computers and other tech gadgets, but not increasing capacity to make up for it. It also doesn't help that there's no incentive other than cost for people to use Alternative Energy like solar or wind. Well, that's not totally true, there are actually Lots and Lots of Incentives in some states for end-user renewable energy, but it's still really expensive.

Well.. they just might *be* deductable.. here's a database of all the sustainable energy incentives: DSIRE