Slashdot Mirror
CA Solar Use Falling Because of Economics
mdsolar writes "The LA Time reports that California is seeing a big drop off in rebate applications for solar power systems. It seems that to get a rebate you have to also switch to a time of use rate with your utility. The math is not working out, especially for smaller systems that don't fully cover use during peak hours. The result: homeowners are reluctant to go with solar energy. 'The difference between peak and off-peak rates is particularly large in the 11 counties of Central, coastal and Southern California, where Edison provides electricity service to 13 million customers. Edison charges summer time-of-use rates that range from 29.7 to 35.9 cents per kilowatt-hour between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. It drops to a range of 16.3 to 18.6 cents per kilowatt-hour from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekdays and all weekend days and holidays, according to documents filed with the PUC.' There is likely an optimal system size that reduces consumer costs, but with things in flux you'd want some flexibility in your system."
The math with current photovoltaics will not come out in favour until the fossil fuel rises by a factor of at least 10 times. Does not matter what, how, who, where. They are simply too expensive to provide a reasonable ROI. They also have a very high environmental cost to produce so people who buy them are not doing a lot of good to the environment. Photovoltaics are a gimmick, similar to the hybrid cars which allow metrosexuals and hollywood stars to show off some fake green credentials.
The only working nowdays solar tech for electricity is this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm. The tech is originally french (they have been running a pilot plant like this near Marseiles since the mid-70es). For the numbers quoted in the article the performance is quite impressive. 22MW is a small plant, most of them have per-KW cost higher than the normal electricity cost anyway. It is also first of a kind, so cost is inevitably higher like for any new tech. If this is industrialised it should be able to produce electricity at nearly normal costs in any place where you have sun and water to use as a coolant. Plenty of empty land near the coasts around the world to use for this.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Googling says you can acquire a 32 amp hour, 12v sealed lead acid battery: http://store.sundancesolar.com/12vol33amsea.html Or, 384 watt-hours, if you prefer. Which'd run an 4 energy efficient 11W lights overnight, just about. But you can forget about having a hot shower, or a cup of coffee :)
Operating costs of power plants vary, with large coal fuelled plants usually the cheapest and small gas powered plants the most expensive. So you run the baseload on coal and nuclear and switch in the more expensive plants as you need them. In the US in summer highest demand is during the day,so everything gets switched in and the rate is higher. At night you can run on baseload and the cost is lower. There is a lot more to it than that including the effects of energy dealing, but basically that's why solar power makes sense in Ca and Az - you need your power when the sun is shining. In N Europe where our demand is more balanced and the sun is at a lower angle, wind and wave make more sense because they run 24 hours per day (somewhere)
Pining for the fjords
It isn't so much that the incremental cost of producing the power is higher at peak times as it is the cost of capital for an asset that's used less than 10% of the time. What makes life a bit worse is Calif's big FU attempt at deregulation where the utilities were forced to sell off their generation to companies that charge even higher rates during peak times than what the utilities would have done otherwise.The first step that Calif should have taken in deregulation was to phase in time of day power for everyone over a ten year period. This would also make the economics of solar a lot better as the peak output of solar panels occurs during peak load times.
They estimated 22 years to reclaim the investment at $0.42/kWh under Ontario's Standard Offer Program. Which is allowing $0.42/kWh for PV and $0.11 for all other renewable systems.
You can watch the live output stats (requires flash) of the Exibition Palace 100kWh installation in Toronto and see historical data.
The system has been online since last August and they should have a much better month this June, but the 100kW Solar PV installation poorest functional month was 1.8MWh (January) and best was 9MWh so far. At the $0.42/kWh this translates to $756-$3780 per month or 24-121 years to reclaim the investment. At $0.11/kWh this is $198-$990/month or 92-462 years to break even on the investment.
I would think the real annual output will land in the center and at the $0.42/kWh rate, they will reclaim the $1.1 million in around 40 years if the panels output doesn't degrade severely through that period.
In higher annual insolation areas like California and Hawaii with peak electrical usage due to AC, solar PV is getting better for low-maintenance installations like a Walmart or Google roof, when the PR factor is taken into account, but in Canada, it's a long way off from feasible due to the low winter insolation and "Twin Peaks" electrical load with the highest peak in February when solar PV has no real output.
SHPEGS is our attempt to design a more suitable renewable power system for Canada, Northern US and Europe.
Diagram of Compressed Air Storage Idea
Just as a frame of reference, a 32Ah 12v battery is a small car battery. The battery in most cars is around 45Ah. Of course for this application you'd want a "deep cycle" battery that won't be damaged by being run nearly flat and then charged hard - these are sold for caravans and boats. They're more expensive than normal car batteries (about £1 per Ah), but they will last longer in this situation. Some companies actually do batteries specifically for solar power applications, but I don't know what makes them different from normal deep-cycle batteries.
I'm in exactly the situation described in the article. I've gotten my first quote on a solar system, and will get my second quote next week. I'm trying to figure out if the whole thing makes sense financially, and the TOU requirement certainly doesn't help. Data on the quote I have:
- 5.2 kW nominal power, 4.4 kW output from the inverter
- estimated yearly output of 7600 kW.hr
- $40,900, lowered to $28,100 by rebates
- 468 square feet
Last year we used about 12,000 kW.hr, which cost us $2,400. We've instituted a bunch of conservation measures, which should make that figure a lot lower in the future. The critical thing is the summer months, when we'd sometimes been using 1500 kW.hr per month. This is partly the pool pump (which you have to run longer when the water temp is higher), but mainly AC. Actually although we're in Southern California, our house stays pretty cool naturally, and often we go a whole summer without turning on the AC for more than a few days, but there's always the temptation just to turn on the AC because it feels more comfortable. We just signed up for a voluntary program where Edison installs a remote control on your AC and turns it off at peak times, in return for which they give you some money. We've also started using the pool pump for fewer hours per day, which seems to be working OK as long as I'm very careful about all other aspects of pool maintenance.If we hadn't instituted any conservation measures, and if the legislature doesn't backstep on the TOU thing (which seems to have been simply a mistake), then I'm estimating we'd only save about $1,250 per year with the solar system, which isn't much of a return on a $28k investment. Judged purely as an investment, we'd have been better off just putting the money in the bond market or something.
On the other hand, if we do the conservation measures, then the TOU might not be such a big deal, because we wouldn't be buying much energy at the summer, peak rate of $.36/kW.hr. My estimate is that if we hardly ever turn on the AC (which we've done in some summers), then the TOU thing becomes financially irrelevant to us, and the system saves us about $1,500/year, which is somewhat better. It becomes an investment sort of similar to a standard real estate investment, where you pay a bunch of money up front, and then get a steady for a long time. One big issue is that you want to make sure your system lasts long enough so that it pays for itself, and that means you want to have confidence in your warranty. The good news is that the companies I'm getting quotes from have been in business for 40 years. The bad news is that the LA Times is quoting them as saying that unless the legislature reverses the TOU requirement, they'll all go out of business within 100 days.
The real issue is global warming. If it's reasonably neutral in investment terms, then I'm inclined to do it, but it's worrisome to have this cloud of uncertainty.
Find free books.
I don't know what is causing the drop-off. However, I do have solar energy system that was installed in 2003. I was not required to install a time of use meter (the E7 tariff in California) but I moved to that tariff because it makes great sense.
The normal baseline rate for electricity on the standard residential tariff (E1) is 11.4 cents/kWh rising to 36.4 cents/kWh for usage over 300% of baseline. On the E7 tariff, during summer peak time (noon to 6pm) the baseline cost is 29.4 cents/kWh rising to 52.8 cents/kWh for over 300% of baseline usage. However, off-peak cost is 8.6 cents/kWh to 32.1 cents/kWh at 300% usage.
What do all these numbers mean? My solar array generates a high percentage of the total amount of electricity generated during peak time. I know this because a data monitor was installed on my solar array and I have detailed numbers on the performance of the panels and inverters. I think it was well worth the $1500 additional cost.
Bottom line: last year I used 16,345 KWh of electricity, 12,096 kWh generated by the solar panels and 4,249 provided by the utility company. However, I ended the year $191 in credit with the utility. This is because they credit me at the current rate when I send electricity back into the grid, and I'm delivering electricity at the time when I get the highest credit, and I'm using electricity at night when the price is lowest. So, last year I received 4,249 kWh of electricity from the utility that I didn't have to pay for. Without the E7 tariff I would have received ~$1,200 less credit for peak time generation and I would have paid ~$160 more for the electricity I did use.
Obviously, mileage will vary for different installations. For me, time of use has been, and continues to be, a great financial benefit. It also contributes to home comfort: I sent my home thermostat to a minimum of 72 degrees and a maximum of 76 degrees, and that's how the thermostat stays 24/7 all year. Extravagant maybe, because I could have saved more electricity with different thermostat settings, but I like my comfort. And saving electricity doesn't do me any good because all it gives me is a larger credit with the utility company (and I can't convert that to cash).
You need to be careful when doing straight calculations like that - the big problem with lead-acid batteries is that their discharge is highly nonlinear. In other words if I have a 32 amp hour, 12-volt battery, if I drain it very slowly (a few amps only), I'll get the equivalent of 32 amp-hours out of it. If I were to draw, say, 32 amps out of it, it would be dead in much less (probably around 35 minutes') time. There are much larger capacities available, but the big problem with this is that A.) The batteries may be affordable, but the control systems are definitely not and B.) the conversion from DC to AC will also kill your storage efficiency. We ran into some of these problems trying to design such a system for a house in a developing community in Ghana.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
You're obviously not a Californian. Post Proposition 13, improvements to your house that increase its value don't make your property tax go up. Only the homeowner by voting a special assessment, the local government State Legislature can and only then with a super-majority vote. If you sell the house, however, the next buyer's tax bill will get the full benefit of your improvements. Remodeling the kitchen has the same effect. Which one has a better possibility of lowering your electric bill?
Environmental fuzzy save the birds you're killing from the reflection of your solar panels tax .2%
Does this happen? A quick google seems to indicate that birds have a better chance of getting killed by chasing light on the other side of glass windows than being par-cooked by reflected light. The neighborhood cat kills more birds than the solar panels ever will.
I used to work for a power company (in I/T, not operations), so I have some level of credibility for this statement:
The daytime is actually higher due to businesses. If you go in a store, every light is on, the large A/C units are running, servers, desktops, etc. After 6, things start to get shut down. After 9, even the lights of a store are put in "night mode" so that only a few security lights are on.
The amount of electricity used by the typical homeowner at night is not that much. For example, at my house, most of the house is dark at around 10 (kids in bed, etc.) with just my wife and I in our bedroom watching TV with maybe a lamp on low (or dark, depends). It's cooler at night, so the A/C doesn't run as hard. All of the other load is constant anyway (fridge, computers, etc.).
Layne
I've got one for my backup server, it cost me like $300 at a boat accessories store. 89 AH and it runs for hours (something like 10 on a fairly power hungry old skool Athlon TBird, or something to the effect - might be a duron, come to think of it). Oh, and watch out for thermal runaway during charging, or you won't have to light a smoke to be toasted.
More Info:
Deep Cycle Battery FAQ
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
The SEGS plants at Kramer Junction in the Mojave Desert have been operating since the 1980's and are the largest solar plants in the world producing 354 MW.
Nevada Solar One is 64MW of solar thermal (3rd largest solar plant) and set to come online this year.
Stirling Energy Systems has a CPUC approved contract with SCE for a 500MW parabolic stirling solar thermal plant.
This document details a lot of the 100 year history of solar thermal attempts.
SHPEGS is our not-for-profit design project to adapt solar thermal to moderate climates by combining it with geothermal and heat pump technology. There is more information and links here.
Why isn't the electric utility installing large solar panels to generate electricity during peak hours? Because that takes more money than burning fossil fuels in power plants?
Exactly. Burning fossil fuels in power plants is an extremely cheap method of power. It can generate power at a cost of ~4cents/kwh. Nuclear is something like 3.9 average. This includes production and capital costs, from the chart on this page(scroll down), actual production costs are only ~2 cents, with nuclear edging below coal in 2000.
What kills solar is the install cost. There was an article about a canadian plant on slasdot recently, they were expecting it to cost $300 million for 40MW. Now, $300 million at 5% interest is 15 million a year. That's capital cost. I estimate that it'd produce 140 million kwh* a year. That's 10.7 cents per kwh for the capital costs alone, this does not include any plant costs.
10.7 cents vs. 4 cents? Tough sell
They could get creative e.g. leasing rooftop space from homeowners.
That would be a huge hassle, as they'd then be liable for everybody's roofs whenever a good storm comes through, as well as having to worry about climbing on 10k roofs to make repairs. It ends up being cheaper to buy property out somewhere and building a massive plant. Building owners can make it pay for such small installs because they're paying retail for electricity, not wholesale. Personally, I'd be installing a solar water heating system, preferably capable of heating the house as well. That's currently far more economical. Doesn't take much roof space either. If solar panels were a tenth of their current cost, it'd make far more sense.
*40MW plant, 40% load factor
I don't read AC A human right
Off-peak here is 11 hours per day, so I'd need to sustain something like 1kW (at a guess) 13 hours - let's call it 15 for a bit of slack. No, sod it, let's go for a full 24-hour supply at an average of 1kW (I don't have a lot of heavy electrical appliances that run during the day). So that's 24kW/h - and I suspect I'm guessing high there.
Right, let's consider our power delivery system. Forget 12v, to reduce the current draw I'm going to use 24v electrics. This page has a range of 24v to 240v inverters. They run at around 90% efficiency (inverters are very good these days). Lets assume a full load draw of 50A - that's 1200Ah. LED lighting tends to be easier to get in 12V form, with GX53-type replacements being cheap and easy to get. They put out about the same light as a halogen lamp (maybe a little less) for an input power of less than 2W. At most they're going to pull down maybe 15A for a houseful. Let's for argument's sake say it's 10W, because that gives us a total load on the batteries of 60A. We'll split the lights across the batteries to even the load.
Still with me? Good. We have a total power requirement of 60A at 24v, for 24 hours. This is 1440Ah (it's also 1440kW/h, but that's just co-incidence. 24 volts, 24 hours). Let's go look at batteries.
A quick Google suggests the Elecsol 125 batteries might be the way to go - they're relatively cheap, small enough to be handled by one man (28kg - they're not light!) and not too expensive (a little below the £1/Ah price point). With 125Ah capacity, we'll need 24 to cover our day's requirements.
These are 34x17x24cm, and this is where my crappy arithmetic and geometry fails me. I could arrange them on a special stand about 102x68x80cm, or very roughly the size of a small chest freezer. You'd need a bit more room for the services board, and some switchgear, the inverter and the regulator. You'd still easily fit it in your garage, though.
The power companies told the legislature that they were getting screwed because they had to buy the power from home generators at retail (the same rate(s) they charged the homeowners) and sell the excess at wholesale rates. They got the legislature and PUC to change the rate structure to allow them to charge home generators commercial (time-of-use) rates, which is good for the power companies because most home generators do not generate enough to cover their needs at peak times (especially during the summer cooling season). Of course, since people are not (quite?) as stupid as some make them out to be, the law of unintended consequences kicks in. Homeowners do the math and do not install solar systems and the power companies lose out on all that peak time generating capacity those systems would have freed up, and all the lovely money they could have charged for it. Oh, the joys of artificial economics.
Now, if any of the 3 or 4 "new solar technologies" that promise more conversion efficiency and/or radically lower production and deployment costs (and seen on this board) come to fruition, we will see "solar roofs" all over the place, without the need for artificial incentives.
Look Out Above!
Not quite true. The costs of producing any good factors into the supply curve. To say that the production costs don't enter into it, would be the law of "demand and demand", I guess. Electricity is highly perishable, so the supply and demand equilibrium is different at different times of day.
I'm an EE, but not a power engineer. My Dad was, and we talked about his work a lot.
The capital costs of generating power vary with peak demand. The higher the peak demand, the more generating and transmission capacity you need. It doesn't really matter if the peak is at Noon or 4pm or midnight, the scale of the "plant" required is determined by this peak demand value.
So if you are in the business of selling electricity, you'd like to keep capital costs down, since these affect your fixed costs, and you charge more for power during peak hours (shifting the supply curve at that time) to reduce demand.
Another method is to charge a "demand charge" based on a customer's largest peak demand. This encourages commercial customers to keep their demand flatter, or even install load shedding devices to create their own local blackouts at their facilities to prevent their peak demand from exceeding a threshold that they are unwilling to pay for.
Electric customers can save money on electricity by buying it "off-peak". For a factory, this might mean running evening and night shifts. For a residential customer, this might mean installing an automatic thermostat, for example. As you said, though, most residential customers in the US do not pay for electricity at different "peak" and "off peak" rates, and most are not subject to a demand charge.
I am not a crackpot.
But you can forget about having a hot shower, or a cup of coffee :)
For my hot water needs, I'm planning on installing a solar water heater system, and store pre-heated water in a 2nd tank next to the main (natural gas) water heater.
The systems I'm looking at are designed to work even in winter (in sunny conditions, of course), and automated to work when the conditions are right.
These systems are just about the cheapest green alternatives one can get.
"its still at high pressure at this point, cooling it doesn't lower the pressure."
Horse puckey. What you describe is an intercooler, and is common in turbocharged engines. It is NOT, repeat, NOT, a source of free energy.
"A lot of this is counter intuitive I will admit"
If by "counter intuitive" you mean "violates the laws of thermodynamics", then yes, I'd say it's counter intuitive.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
What you and others seem to miss is that according to the article the California PUC (Public Utilities Commission) has forceably set the rates to all new solar installation at peak rates regardless of the time of day they purchase the electricity to supplement their systems, regardless if it is purchased at night and battery stored or not. This effectively makes it to where anyone with solar that still needs some grid electricity have to pay extremely high rates for that electricity and thus reduces the economic performance of their system. If this was not the case then any peak electricity the customer generated via solar would reduce their peak costs and could make it worthwhile for a customer to slowly add solar as they could afford it however this PUC decision makes it only worthwhile to put in solar if you put in a system that takes you completely off the grid from day one. According to the article, there has been no new solar in California since January 1 "GOOD" or otherwise.
Instead of speculating, how about using google to see the thousands and thousands of installations where they DO use battery banks for homes? It's doable. It just is. People spending half a million to a million bucks on a house in California can afford 40 grand for a very sophisticated rig, and tie it directly into their long term mortgage, then they got their electric bill covered for 25 years + with no sudden sticker shock price increases, along with peace of mind that they won't be suffering "rolling blackouts" or whatnot. Added bonus, up the size from there and when electric vehicles become common at the dealers- within two or three years now-you'll have your transportation costs covered for most purposes as well. And you can still keep the system grid tied to boot if you want to use the grid as the redundant backup, instead of vice versa, and slap it on a timer so you only use it at the lowest rates times. And people don't need any more incentive or financing than that.
Enough with the FUD, solar PV works NOW in huge numbers of places for a lot of people. Not for everyone, but for millions it is perfectly viable as long as you just get rid of that short term thinking. How long you want to live in a house? Think that way and it makes sense, and the damn housing bubble popping should also make it sink in that your house is YOUR HOME to live in, not some damn stock for pump and dump schemes.. Overseas they can't build the damn factories fast enough because of the demand, BECAUSE IT WORKS RIGHT NOW. With solar PV you eventually break even then start making good profit, that part varies widely but it's true, but with grid-only, IT NEVER HAPPENS, NEVER, there is NO "ROI' with grid supplied electricity, so compare THAT. with grid only you'll pay through the nose forever, with your rates always going up, with no control over them, because you have no long term pricing contract, nor will the fatcat energy cartels sell you one. So much for "regulations", where's the regulation that will allow you to demand something more than a freaking month by month electricity rent scam from your local utility?
Unless you are someone who rents everything they use, and think that is just ducky, it is a much better deal to OWN STUFF outright. It's called "building equity" and is taught in econo 101. Owning your own power is enabling, being 100% dependent for it, something as damn necessary for modern homes as it is, is foolish long term economics and even worse for guaranteed "uptime". You want your computers to have good uptime, including a UPS system, why not your home? A solar PV rig with a good battery bank is a WHOLE HOUSE UPS system that guarantees some good uptime. A home without power due to weird geopolitics and sudden gotchas in the world energy markets or some natural disaster goes from affordable and good enough to OMG THIS SUCKS. Egads, read the damn news sometime. How many energy costs sudden increases does it take to sink in? How many natural disasters where the grid goes down for weeks or months does it take to sink in? The 20th century was the big push for centralized, massively controlled and profitable for the fatcats distributed power, the 21st century is the era of DECENTRALIZED power, based on solar and the wind and geothermal and hydro. Adapt and adopt or stay at the fatcats and moms nature's mercy, two choices. Why the HELL you still want to keep making energy cartel billionaires even richer is beyond me, why the hell you want to 100% rely on the grid when it has been proven over and over again how fragile it is, especially in emergencies when you really NEED power is beyond me..
Yeah, but I don't need all the power stuff. Besides, the basic honda civic is rated closer to 34mpg than 30mpg, and I happen to like manual transmissions. Oddly enough, the current automatic transmission is rated for better milage than the manual, by 1mpg, but costs a little more. The models I compared do NOT have satellite navigation, and investigation shows that even the basic civic has power windows and such today. Whatever... ($800@$3/gallon=266 gallons, or around 9k miles)
Still, more detailed comparison.
Civic Hybrid: 50mpg*, Base MSRP(NO SatNav) $22.6K, 5yr maint: $2,056
Civic LX: 34mpg, MSRP: $17K, 5yr maint; $2,011
Accessories on the Hybrid but not on the LX: Automatic Climate Control and Satellite radio. Let's say the missing features are worth $2k, so it's 22.6K vs 19K. Difference of $3.6K.
15k miles:
Hybrid: 300 gallons of fuel
Lx: 441 gallons
Difference: 141 gallons of fuel, $423@$3/gal. $564@$4
Cost of capital can still kill you here:
Payback@0% interest: 8.5 years @$3/gal, 6.4 years at $4/gal.
Payback@5% interest: 11.2 years, 7.75 years
Payback@10% interest: 19.2, 10.25 years.
Please note that I've heard that a battery replacement may be required after the five year point, at a cost in the thousands of dollars. My solution right now is to hang onto my current car until it wears out in the hopes that hybrid maintenance requirements will become better known, prices will drop and efficiency increase even more.
*Found by averaging city and highway EPA figures
I don't read AC A human right
The "Solar Rights Act" of California, passed in 1979, protects your rights to solar access. The City of Glendale, per this law, cannot prevent you from installing solar panels.
"California Civil Code 714
Prohibits local governments from creating unreasonable barriers for solar energy installations. Additionally, any reasonable restrictions cannot cost more than $2,000 and cannot reduce the efficiency of the solar energy system.
California Health & Safety Code 17959.1
Prevents cities and counties from denying solar energy system installation permits unless there is substantial recorded evidence that it would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety."