We need to be fair to poor people by blocking them from profit

[Zorba]

That's what the sreq market is for. Systems from about 5 years ago produced more sreq's. I'd guess systems 5 years from now will produce fewer sreq's.

*an sreq is basically a unit for producing clean energy that can be sold on a market place to offset businesses carbon pollution.

Do you have a link for how that works? I haven't ever seriously looking into personal solar since I've always lived in neighborhoods that ban it.

 

[K1052]

It's possible but not practical in the least except under extreme circumstances like not having access to the grid. Enough batteries to run your house for an average house for an extended period of time, enough time to guarantee no loss of power during adverse conditions, is extremely expensive. Then add in the fact that batteries have a much shorter lifespan than the rest of the system and it almost never makes economic sense to disconnect from the grid.

He asked if it was possible not if it was cost effective.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Do you have a link for how that works? I haven't ever seriously looking into personal solar since I've always lived in neighborhoods that ban it.

I don't have one handy but hit google up and I'd call out a solar company to get an estimate just make sure you understand the sreq portion, they are what makes solar affordable. I know 3 people with or getting solar and everyone is around 6-9 years to pay off with tax credits, electric bill reduction and sreqs. When you schedule an appointment make sure they know you need sreqs explained well. I wish we went solar earlier but the first guy did not explain the sreq market well.

 

[K1052]

Practical storage at the capacities needed is over the horizon technology. It may never exist. Renewables will likely never fulfill all our needs. The only other way to move away from fossil fuels is nuclear power.

Renewables may not cover all energy needs for decades but the problems with storage are more cost than technological. Even a decade ago if you said companies would be grabbing wind and solar hand over fist that would have been a pretty questionable prediction as well. There is increasing demand for storage solutions now with states mulling (or implementing in the case of CA) mandates. I guess I don't fully share your pessimism.

 

[Darwin333]

With net metering, solar is the most expensive electricity on the grid and I'd sure not free. Selling that power back also uses the grid. Typically per companies buy electricity wholesale, then they incur the transport cost, then charge the customer retail for that power and transport. With net metering, the power company is paying the full retail price, then still incures transport cost on that power to it to someone else, but can't charge for that transportation. It would be equivalent of an OEM expecting Walmart to pay them full retail for a product to sell.

Now, I very much support distributed solar and wind, but net metering is not fair at all to the utility and is a give away to people that can afford private solar from people that can't.

While you have a point you are missing a big part of it. When a power company purchases power wholesale it must transport that power very long distances to it's various end users. When solar is sold back to the grid it's usually used by the solar producers neighbors so it's transported very very short distances, we are talking feet in most cases not hundreds of miles.

 

[Darwin333]

I didn't say constant. If the grid goes down during peak solar hours then anybody who's selling power back to the grid should be able to generate enough to run a lot of their own house while the grid is down. If the grid goes down then the house disconnects from the grid. If the solar array can't keep up with the house then the system shuts down. You don't need batteries to do that. Capiche?

I am a solar expert and I'm telling you that the solar array alone can not keep up with the house, period. If it could we would already be using switching inverters much like are used on systems that do have battery backups. Capiche?

 

[Darwin333]

He asked if it was possible not if it was cost effective.

The first two words of my post answered that, the rest simply elaborated on why it's almost always a bad idea.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't have one handy but hit google up and I'd call out a solar company to get an estimate just make sure you understand the sreq portion, they are what makes solar affordable. I know 3 people with or getting solar and everyone is around 6-9 years to pay off with tax credits, electric bill reduction and sreqs. When you schedule an appointment make sure they know you need sreqs explained well. I wish we went solar earlier but the first guy did not explain the sreq market well.

It's actually a Srec not a Sreq.

Do you have a link for how that works? I haven't ever seriously looking into personal solar since I've always lived in neighborhoods that ban it.

http://blog.recsolar.com/solar-finance-101-whats-an-srec-and-how-much-is-it-worth

That gives the basic rundown on what they are. Not all states have Srec markets though so make sure your state has one and what the value is on the market in your state.

 

[Darwin333]

Practical storage at the capacities needed is over the horizon technology. It may never exist. Renewables will likely never fulfill all our needs. The only other way to move away from fossil fuels is nuclear power.

There are actually some cool technologies that are in development that can be used anywhere, unlike water energy storage. This technology uses gravel to store thermal energy and can be installed just about anywhere in the world.

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/Technologies

 

[superstition]

I own a business in the solar industry and have never heard of such a thing.

I go to a lot of national conventions and have never heard of the "insurance" you are talking about and any company implementing it would also have to charge it to anyone running any sort of backup generator.

My power company requires that anyone who installs a grid-tied solar system to purchase insurance. They say it is to cover their workers in the case they get injured on the property, from shocks mainly.

I did a Google search about this and read that this is not an uncommon requirement.

It strikes me as a disincentive utilities can use to dampen private solar installation interest.

 

[superstition]

Net metering was/is an incentive to increase the penetration of solar into the market and drive a high enough demand to get economies of scale. Now that we have gotten solar much closer to parity, we should start pulling back the incentives.

Less than 1% of electricity generated but that's parity.

This is a huge problem with all incentives, they are given generally with a specific goal in mind, buy then they are extended forever because people get upset about then being sunset.

The huge problem with incentives is when anyone but the wealthy can take advantage of them.

 

[Zorba]

My power company requires that anyone who installs a grid-tied solar system to purchase insurance. They say it is to cover their workers in the case they get injured on the property, from shocks mainly.

I did a Google search about this and read that this is not an uncommon requirement.

It strikes me as a disincentive utilities can use to dampen private solar installation interest.

It appears to be state based. Apparently Oklahoma has a law that bans utilities from requiring additional insurance.

Less than 1% of electricity generated but that's parity.

I meant cost parity, not that solar was 50% of generation. The incentive was to increase the economics of scale, it worked, it worked well, but it doesn't need to continue forever once you have achieved the goal of scale.

The huge problem with incentives is when anyone but the wealthy can take advantage of them.

I doubt that many truly poor people would be purchasing solar either way. But many middle class people have taken advantage of this incentive already. Regardless, incentives generally target early adopters, and generally early adopters have extra cash.

 

[Darwin333]

My power company requires that anyone who installs a grid-tied solar system to purchase insurance. They say it is to cover their workers in the case they get injured on the property, from shocks mainly.

I did a Google search about this and read that this is not an uncommon requirement.

It strikes me as a disincentive utilities can use to dampen private solar installation interest.

Wow, that is crazy. You literally can't install a system legally that will energize the grid when the power goes down so it's a pure money grab. Besides, they already have insurance on their workers that cover any injuries. Do they do the same thing for people who hook up automatic backup generators like whole house nat. gas generators?

 

[Darwin333]

I doubt that many truly poor people would be purchasing solar either way. But many middle class people have taken advantage of this incentive already. Regardless, incentives generally target early adopters, and generally early adopters have extra cash.

Well in a lot of states current incentives do allow poor and lower middle class people to get solar through solar leasing programs. The installer keeps all of the tax incentives and charges the customer a monthly fee that is less than the amount they save on their power bill. As solar gets cheaper the lease prices will come down and widen the difference between lease price and savings which will get a lot more poor people to sign up.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well in a lot of states current incentives do allow poor and lower middle class people to get solar through solar leasing programs. The installer keeps all of the tax incentives and charges the customer a monthly fee that is less than the amount they save on their power bill. As solar gets cheaper the lease prices will come down and widen the difference between lease price and savings which will get a lot more poor people to sign up.

Problem with that set up is it doesn't generate income and there is a lean on your house for the solar, which complicates selling the house. Especially if a buyer wants to own the panels.

 

[Darwin333]

Problem with that set up is it doesn't generate income and there is a lean on your house for the solar, which complicates selling the house. Especially if a buyer wants to own the panels.

None of the companies around here put a lean on your house, maybe in the case of non-payment but they make a decent amount off the incentives and they could simply remove the panels and lease them to someone else and come out way ahead. As far as generating income, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about producing more power than you use over a years time and actually making money from the power company?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

None of the companies around here put a lean on your house, maybe in the case of non-payment but they make a decent amount off the incentives and they could simply remove the panels and lease them to someone else and come out way ahead. As far as generating income, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about producing more power than you use over a years time and actually making money from the power company?

The previously mentioned srec's. My system should pay for itself with in 8 years and then my srec credits should generate about 2k per year till around year 15, then it will generate around 1,250 per year. I can't remember the 20 year plus projection.
I still don't get the lease program you are talking about do you not sign a lease for it? Does the solar provider remove the used panels without a charge or a huge fight?
The leases we looked at were set in stone, no getting out of them a new buyer needs to accept the lease or you buy them out and their prices were a bit inflated. That's why there was a lien on the house.

 

[Zorba]

Well in a lot of states current incentives do allow poor and lower middle class people to get solar through solar leasing programs. The installer keeps all of the tax incentives and charges the customer a monthly fee that is less than the amount they save on their power bill. As solar gets cheaper the lease prices will come down and widen the difference between lease price and savings which will get a lot more poor people to sign up.

Yeah, I knew poorer people could get into the leases, which is why I said purchase instead of install. But to the OP's premise, poor people already had access through leasing, and I don't see poor people purchasing the panels themselves with our without the incentives.

It's been a few years since I looked into leases, so I'm sure it's changed, but when they first came out they seemed very high risk little reward for the individual.

 

[superstition]

incentives generally target early adopters, and generally early adopters have extra cash.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Welfare for the rich as usual.

The incentive was to increase the economics of scale, it worked, it worked well

China worked well? Maybe for "Canadian Solar" but not so much for the people choking on pollution there.

I guess all the new solar-related service companies in the US don't need to employ people either. Let them line up for a McDonald's job.

I doubt that many truly poor people would be purchasing solar either way. But many middle class people have taken advantage of this incentive already.

There are two classes in-between. Working class and lower-middle — both of which are more relevant to this discussion than the high-income "middle" class people who bought into solar quite some time ago.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am a solar expert and I'm telling you that the solar array alone can not keep up with the house, period. If it could we would already be using switching inverters much like are used on systems that do have battery backups. Capiche?

I genuinely don't understand. I was at my sister in law's place this summer for a gathering. They have a solar array. It was around noon on a hot sunny day. As she showed me, the meter was running backwards. Power was going to the grid as the house electrical system just did its thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for confirming my point.

Welfare for the rich as usual.

China worked well? Maybe for "Canadian Solar" but not so much for the people choking on pollution there.

I guess all the new solar-related service companies in the US don't need to employ people either. Let them line up for a McDonald's job.

There are two classes in-between. Working class and lower-middle — both of which are more relevant to this discussion than the high-income "middle" class people who bought into solar quite some time ago.

Look at it this way- It's Arizona. It's Republicans. It's political. It's about money, lots of it.

Therefore, the little guy gets screwed.

I do object to your title, however. Poor people don't put solar arrays on rentals, ya know?

 

[Zorba]

Thanks for confirming my point.

Welfare for the rich as usual.

China worked well? Maybe for "Canadian Solar" but not so much for the people choking on pollution there.

I guess all the new solar-related service companies in the US don't need to employ people either. Let them line up for a McDonald's job.

There are two classes in-between. Working class and lower-middle — both of which are more relevant to this discussion than the high-income "middle" class people who bought into solar quite some time ago.

I'm not sure what point you are arguing against, I am not for killing solar. I am saying as parity is reached you should pull back the incentives, that way you have the money to incentivize the next big thing. But once the technology is cheap enough to provide a payback in a reasonable amount of time people will install it with our without subsidy. If you leave the subsidy it'll almost all go to higher middle class, who can afford the high capital cost.

Further I don't really agree with making the utilities pay the incentive. If society wants to keep the incentive it should be paid for via taxes or carbon credits. To the power company power is power, why should they pay double for yours?

I really don't see the lower middle class shelling out 15-25k for a solar install, regardless you started this thread about the poor not working class.

I do object to your title, however. Poor people don't put solar arrays on rentals, ya know?

This is my point.

 

[Zorba]

I also move that if you truly want to help the poor with energy cost, it would be much better to start a program to insulate and seal their houses and improve their HVAC equipment. You could have much more widespread impact for less cost overall.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I also move that if you truly want to help the poor with energy cost, it would be much better to start a program to insulate and seal their houses and improve their HVAC equipment. You could have much more widespread impact for less cost overall.

Quoted for the truth. Adding insulation in my attic made a huge difference in my electric bill during the summer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Lets not forget that the incentives are already built into the price. This happens with nearly anything you buy too, lets say the solar providers know the perceived value of a solar system is 18k and they know on average there will be a 12k tax credit. Systems will be priced around 30k until the credit disappears then they will ultimately sell around the 18k figure without incentives (made up numbers).