I added insulation and new high efficiency windows to my home and it cut my power bill almost in half, should I have to pay a penalty?

12/15/2013 10:51:12 AM

well of course because the power company still has to maintain the infrastructure to your house and you pay for half as much of it as before if you do not pay a fee the power company passes all the costs to other people.

[Edited on December 15, 2013 at 12:17 PM. Reason : sarcasm...]

12/15/2013 12:16:29 PM

Quote :

"in the summer, power companies have to start up less efficient generators or run the larger ones at a less efficient, higher rate to keep up with all the air conditioners running on a sunny day. Having some extra generation from some solar panels would help reduce that amount and would make up for any stand-by power the people with solar would use on cloudy days."

in a perfect world, where every solar panel installation was coupled with a battery system, this would be true. In reality, the panels we have fluctuate up and down in load drastically to the point that the backup generators have to still be operating to carry the load fluctuations. The only real savings to the power company is in lowered fuel costs, but the operating hours and maintenance on the systems doesn't change.

You should look at a realtime output of a solar panel system to get an idea of how finicky they are; they can go from full output to 10% output back to full output in a matter of seconds with no visible change in cloud cover. The angles most people install them at are usually based on maximum kwH rating and not at optimal peak shaving angle, which is much later in the day during the summer.

The only way to correct this issue is to decouple our power bills so that fuel charges are separate from infrastructure charges, and people with solar panels should pay higher infrastructure charges to cover their extra meter and the extra coordination issues they push onto distribution systems.

[Edited on December 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason : typo]

12/15/2013 12:18:12 PM

I'm still not understanding how solar panels are different from any other power saving issue, for example my insulation/siding and windows, in regards to costs to the power company.

[Edited on December 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2013 12:22:22 PM

the insulation in your house doesn't decide to stop working every 5 minutes; it also doesn't decide 2 minutes later that it wants to pump power backwards onto the system. Distributed generation and energy conservation are two very different animals.

12/18/2013 11:01:52 AM

So then why doesn't ALEC et al. focus their attention on the power companies and lobbying for improved infrastructure that can adequately handle the transition? Is it simply easier to just label people who make investments in their own home as "freeloaders"?

12/18/2013 11:14:42 AM

^^ so should people with inverters be exempt?

[Edited on December 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM. Reason : i.e. i am putting that power into batteries, and not back into the grid]

12/18/2013 11:48:11 AM

^^you completely missed the point. You're still a freeloader if you expect the government or other customers to pay for the infrastructure necessary to run your solar installation.

^battery backup is an entirely different ballgame, but they probably account for 0.0001% of solar installations. it also has nothing to do with this discussion, as ALEC is only targeting distributed generation facilities.


[Edited on December 18, 2013 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2013 4:35:44 PM

I'm reading that they make up about 10%

but regardless, the advantages of solar energy are shared by everyone so why should the costs od distributed generation not be shared by everyone?

12/18/2013 5:11:24 PM

maybe 10% of the world, when you consider their use in third world countries where there is nothing resembling a grid. Even that is a stretch though.

you've assumed that solar panels are beneficial with that statement too, as if the mining operations that produce the raw products for making these solar panels is less devastating to the planet than the fuels they are offsetting. you've also assumed that small home installations are more of a benefit than a nuisance, which is also questionable.

If you wanted to argue the benefits of 10MW and larger installations beside existing generation facilities, then I'd be on board and supportive.

12/18/2013 6:02:01 PM

it's just like if you have a propane or fuel oil tank at your house that is filled monthly. you pay the delivery fee separate from the price per gallon. all the power company is trying to do is adopt that billing model.

12/18/2013 6:28:46 PM

Quote :

"you've also assumed that small home installations are more of a benefit than a nuisance, which is also questionable."

I assume you have something viable to back this up?

This whole thing sounds like a deficiency with a 50-60 year old grid that power companies are simply more than happy to just let their attack dogs in ALEC label forward-thinking folks with derogatory terms rather than attempting to realize their relatively freed ride is coming to an end.

12/18/2013 6:36:23 PM

^^ that may be what you think should happen, but thats not what this is

Quote :

"n a perfect world, where every solar panel installation was coupled with a battery system, this would be true. In reality, the panels we have fluctuate up and down in load drastically to the point that the backup generators have to still be operating to carry the load fluctuations. The only real savings to the power company is in lowered fuel costs, but the operating hours and maintenance on the systems doesn't change. "

aren't the new IEEE standards already dealing with this, including changes to when they decouple

Quote :

"you've assumed that solar panels are beneficial with that statement too, as if the mining operations that produce the raw products for making these solar panels is less devastating to the planet than the fuels they are offsetting. you've also assumed that small home installations are more of a benefit than a nuisance, which is also questionable. "

do you have evidence that this is worse than the impact of additional energy from coal?

[Edited on December 18, 2013 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2013 6:53:48 PM

please explain it to me, then

12/18/2013 7:10:07 PM

This is one part of a broader attack on any renewable energy and support of anything oil and gas, they are also trying to get Keystone pipeline passed and still want to kill renewable portfolio standards (among many other things). Solar energy is something that we are encouraging, because we all benefit, so we should all share the cost.



[Edited on December 18, 2013 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2013 7:20:43 PM

Tax carbon at a meaningful level and this conversation is moot. Utilities will be able to come up with their own programs to hook people up to the grid (or perhaps not, they may find some other method of carbon reduction optimal)

I also think that as distributed solar becomes more prevalent it's output will be more consistent and easier to forecast, which will greatly reduce the associated costs to the utility

12/18/2013 8:08:10 PM

carbon taxes will just shift us from coal to natural gas, not to renewables.

12/18/2013 9:31:56 PM

It's a start. Get fracking properly regulated, and we'll be on the right track.

12/18/2013 9:49:46 PM

isn't natural gas better than goal?

12/18/2013 10:16:10 PM

I think so, but there's a lot of commotion over fracking right now. I'm also biased, as my work is being driven heavily off of natural gas right now.

Renewables are also driving us off of coal and onto natural gas, as coal plants don't have the response time to back up intermittent renewables.

12/19/2013 8:54:24 AM

From an emissions/environmental standpoint, natural gas produces far less CO2 than either coal or crude. Not to mention he nasty sulfur content (to varying degrees) of coal.

12/19/2013 9:35:50 AM