Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

[aaron]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

My fault Starving. I was writing and working at the same time this afternoon and not proofing what I wrote.... I should have said, 300 kWh per meter per year. A kw is a thing produced. KWh is a thing produced over time...I never added the time factor.

Here's an example. A good 72 cell, 215 watt solar panel measures 1.25 sq. meters. Installed at even a low angle and reasonably south facing direction it will produce 1.75 kWh per year for every installed DC watt here in the Southwest. That's 301 kWh per sq. meter, per year. In Canada, lower that by about 1/3 because, as you noted, the sun is too low to produce much energy in the winter.

So, is that about $25/year in electricity? What do one of those solar panels cost?

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

So, is that about $25/year in electricity? What do one of those solar panels cost?

It depends on the competition. If you live in the Northwest where there is plenty of hydro power, it's about $18. In Cali it's up to $145 if you have a big house and a heated swimming pool. The average is about $35. The average payback is about 10 years so energy is free after that time. I detailed these costs the other day. If you're interested in more detail, you can track back and find it.

[GRG55]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

It depends on the competition. If you live in the Northwest where there is plenty of hydro power, it's about $18. In Cali it's up to $145 if you have a big house and a heated swimming pool. The average is about $35. The average payback is about 10 years so energy is free after that time. I detailed these costs the other day. If you're interested in more detail, you can track back and find it.

Did I read this correctly...are you saying that the same solar panel can be purchased for $18 in the Pacific Northwest, but costs $145 in California? Why wouldn't truckloads of solar panels be making their way south along Interstate 5 from Seattle to San Diego?

[I am not completely incredulous...these sorts of regional pricing anomalies can happen for many products and for a variety of reasons, but this amount of difference seems abnormally wide. I am currently looking at a specialized building product for the bunker and there are only two distributors up here. The one just a few miles from me is quoting a price 30% higher than the other, who is across the other side of the country. The shipping cost doesn't come close to eating up the difference. I suspect it has more to do with the overall difference in economic activity...we haven't really seen any bust here.]

[c1ue]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

GRG,

The numbers referenced are with regards to the equivalent savings from not having to buy grid electricity.

The national average prices on electricity as well as regional numbers can be found here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_a.html

According to this, 300 Kwh would be $45 in California and $24 in Washington.

My PG&E bill shows $63.92 for 277 Kwh, so the above numbers are probably a statewide average as opposed to a big city specific. The $63.92 includes quite a bit of extra cost like nuclear decommissioning, etc.

Of course the real problem is that the average electricity usage per household is over 900 Kwh per month. This means generating half of electrical needs via solar - even disregarding both summer/winter usage patterns and worst case grid electrical backup needs - requires 18 square meters of solar panels.

Note another major fallacy with Solar: solar by definition requires sprawl.

Solar doesn't work well for multi-unit housing - solar pretty much requires each family to have their own home.

In a real sense, solar is subsidizing sprawl and the potentially unnecessary usage of gas for transportation of people and goods.

For someone living in the boonies and not having to drive to work - i.e. a subsistence farmer or some such - solar is probably a net 'green' gain. For the suburban commuter, not so clear.

Kind of like putting a new catalytic converter on a 1970s smoke belcher.

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Did I read this correctly...are you saying that the same solar panel can be purchased for $18 in the Pacific Northwest, but costs $145 in California? Why wouldn't truckloads of solar panels be making their way south along Interstate 5 from Seattle to San Diego?

[I am not completely incredulous...these sorts of regional pricing anomalies can happen for many products and for a variety of reasons, but this amount of difference seems abnormally wide. I am currently looking at a specialized building product for the bunker and there are only two distributors up here. The one just a few miles from me is quoting a price 30% higher than the other, who is across the other side of the country. The shipping cost doesn't come close to eating up the difference. I suspect it has more to do with the overall difference in economic activity...we haven't really seen any bust here.]

It's the cost of traditional energy that varies greatly, not the cost of solar panels. In the Northwest US a kWh of electricity is about 6 cents so 300 kWhs costs about $18. In California, PG&E Tier 5 residential electrical rates are 45 cents a kWh so 300 kWhs costs $135. The average is under 12 cents per kWh or about $35.

A typical residential solar installation costs $6.50-$7.50 per watt and 40-50% of that is off set by incentives and tax credits. In the case of a PG&E customer in California, the incentive is $1.10 and the federal tax credit is 30% of the remaining cost. If a solar energy system costs $7.00 to install, subtract $1.10 and then take 30% from the remaining amount to get $4.13. Divide by the current cost of energy, 45 cents and you'll get a simple payback of just over 9 years. This is typical in our industry.

So the variables are competing energy costs and local incentive programs. Total incentives vary from 30% to 85% depending on where you live in the US. In some locations it still makes no economic sense to add solar.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

GRG,

The numbers referenced are with regards to the equivalent savings from not having to buy grid electricity.

The national average prices on electricity as well as regional numbers can be found here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_a.html

According to this, 300 Kwh would be $45 in California and $24 in Washington.

My PG&E bill shows $63.92 for 277 Kwh, so the above numbers are probably a statewide average as opposed to a big city specific. The $63.92 includes quite a bit of extra cost like nuclear decommissioning, etc.

Of course the real problem is that the average electricity usage per household is over 900 Kwh per month. This means generating half of electrical needs via solar - even disregarding both summer/winter usage patterns and worst case grid electrical backup needs - requires 18 square meters of solar panels.

Note another major fallacy with Solar: solar by definition requires sprawl.

Solar doesn't work well for multi-unit housing - solar pretty much requires each family to have their own home.

In a real sense, solar is subsidizing sprawl and the potentially unnecessary usage of gas for transportation of people and goods.

For someone living in the boonies and not having to drive to work - i.e. a subsistence farmer or some such - solar is probably a net 'green' gain. For the suburban commuter, not so clear.

Kind of like putting a new catalytic converter on a 1970s smoke belcher.

Four comments:

1.) Urban sprawl is not bad for people or even the environment, especially if the urban sprawl is along public transit lines;

2.) Urban sprawl lowers the value of urban land and makes growth in cities affordable for people, so rents and home prices are AFFORDABLE;

3.) Last time I checked our electric bill in California, 29 days cost over $300 with only about 19 CENTS being for nuclear power plant de-commissioning;

4.) Nuclear power plants need to be RE-commissioned and not de-commissioned in California, so shame on the greens for ever demanding de-commissioning of nukes and blocking the building of dams for hydro-electric power. This is why our electric bill for 29 days is over $300.
SHAME on the greens! (Worse than even the Republicans!:mad

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

My fault Starving. I was writing and working at the same time this afternoon and not proofing what I wrote.... I should have said, 300 kWh per meter per year. A kw is a thing produced. KWh is a thing produced over time...I never added the time factor.

Here's an example. A good 72 cell, 215 watt solar panel measures 1.25 sq. meters. Installed at even a low angle and reasonably south facing direction it will produce 1.75 kWh per year for every installed DC watt here in the Southwest. That's 301 kWh per sq. meter, per year. In Canada, lower that by about 1/3 because, as you noted, the sun is too low to produce much energy in the winter.

301 kwh per sq. metre per year is less than 1 kwh per sq. metre per day. Hence, just using your figures, which appear reasonable to me, that would mean about 20cents per day of power per sq.metre of solar panel using PG&E rates in California or about 11 or 12 cents per day in power using BC Hydro's current rate (after their rate increase). Then we have to deduct off of that the loss to convert the DC power to AC at 60cycles per second, and then we have to deduct the standard depreciation losses on any system of energy due to aging. What is left is pretty darn little.

Your figures ( I would assume ) come from Santa Fe, New Mexico which is high and dry, in desert, and at a reasonably low latitude for the U.S. You have lots of sunshine. Real world in northern Europe or Canada, Japan, most countries outside of the sub-tropical desert regions of the world, solar energy is hopeless as an energy source, and especially hopeless for solar-electric power.

But just like gathering up pennies, enough pennies will make you rich. So, if you gathered solar energy off of say, an acre of land or maybe just even one-quarter acre of land in Santa Fe, you just might be able to get off of the grid and go solar-electric. But the capital cost of a 1/4 acre of solar-electric panels, complete with proper electronics, parabolic mirrors, a battery back-up system for nighttime and winter-time and the odd rainy day, all would be very high....... Kachinga! You are talking about a toy for the very wealthy to show-off to their friends.

So without new nuclear power plants, new hydro-electric dams, new natural gas-fired power plants, and new clean coal-fired power plants, we are doomed to poverty. And poverty ( which means doing-without and freezing in the dark ) is totally unacceptable.

Because of these sad realities of life, my retirement savings is invested with GE, Duke Power Co, and northern Alberta's oil and gas industry. But I did not appreciate the Greenpeace devils trying to make trouble in Alberta and protesting in Edmonton and Ft. McMurray a couple of weeks ago.

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

So without new nuclear power plants, new hydro-electric dams, new natural gas-fired power plants, and new clean coal-fired power plants, we are doomed to poverty.

Over the 2 years I've posted here, I think I've been consistent with the same message you've outlined above. I usually state it more simply, just saying we need all the energy we can get. I would include renewable energy in that menu.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Over the 2 years I've posted here, I think I've been consistent with the same message you've outlined above. I usually state it more simply, just saying we need all the energy we can get. I would include renewable energy in that menu.

Fair enough: "We need all of the energy that we can get... incuding renewable energy in that menu."

My goodness, we agree over all !

Speaking of energy, GE produces a windmill turbine every 4 minutes. GE also produces atomic energy plants and parts. I think they have produced and exported around 180 atomic power plants this year, many to China. That is why I own the stock; i.e, I own GE because I am pro-energy generation of all kinds. ( As you know, GE has been a poor investment, but with Jack Welch gone, things can only improve at GE. )

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

The national average prices on electricity as well as regional numbers can be found here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...able5_6_a.html

Yes, these are the numbers I was quoting in my example. I realized I hadn't said "residential" when I said the national average was just under 12 cents, but it's clearly delineated in this chart.

According to this, 300 Kwh would be $45 in California and $24 in Washington.

That's true but not the situation in which solar is normally deployed in California today. Here's the most recent PG&E "E-1" tariff for their California customers.

E-1_rates.jpg

You'll notice that the first tier rate is only 26% as high as the top rate. Solar does not pay back, (in PG&E territory), at the lowest rate but at the highest rate and the 2nd highest rate, it pays back well.

My PG&E bill shows $63.92 for 277 Kwh, so the above numbers are probably a statewide average as opposed to a big city specific. The $63.92 includes quite a bit of extra cost like nuclear decommissioning, etc.

If that is your monthly usage, I'm impressed. Almost no Americans can manage to live with that amount of electricity. Seriously, everyone lives like c1ue, problem solved.

Of course the real problem is that the average electricity usage per household is over 900 Kwh per month. This means generating half of electrical needs via solar - even disregarding both summer/winter usage patterns and worst case grid electrical backup needs - requires 18 square meters of solar panels.

It's actually twice that much...:eek:, 300 kWh per meter = 3 meters x 12 months or 36 sq. meters. To put this into perspective, that's 360 sq. feet American. The last time I checked that would fit in about 15% of the average American's roof space.

Note another major fallacy with Solar: solar by definition requires sprawl.

Yup, a family of four stretching out in a 360 sq. foot apartment. Those hippie bastards.

Solar doesn't work well for multi-unit housing - solar pretty much requires each family to have their own home.

That's why it's most popular in two countries that have plenty of room to sprawl...Japan and Germany...

In a real sense, solar is subsidizing sprawl and the potentially unnecessary usage of gas for transportation of people and goods.

As an ex-Angeleno who smoked the California crack for several decades, can I warn that this is not a thesis you want to embrace? Your perspective is coming from your observation of the California life style and not the reality of renewable energy as it's practiced outside CA.

[MulaMan]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

I am a globalist, and I am 200% in favour of free trade, the freer-the- better.

Except "free trade" deals have nothing to do with "free trade" and those pushing "free trade" have no interest in "free trade" and never have.

It is kind of like "de-regulation" of financial markets, the goals is to change the rules in the favor of the oligarchs, that is all it is.

Think about what "free trade" would actually mean.

What about "free trade" in labor? Would you agree to that? Lawyers, Doctors, Plumbers, Real Estate Agents, Accountants, whatever your job is - no bars on labor comming in from all four corners of the earth?

Cause you cannot have "free trade" with "free labor".

[santafe2]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

My goodness, we agree over all !

Crazy stuff. I think most of us on iTulip have very similar core beliefs, but different paths to the goal. We may shout at each other on occasion like any other group or family and we may not hear each other for a long time but the community keeps us coming back until we explain and re-explain our position and refine our ideas enough to make sense to those who disagree with us. We may still not agree, but we clearly understand why we don't agree and can state it in a way that anyone can understand. At least, that is my reason for posting here.

It is only by interacting with those we apparently disagree with that we can refine and modify our thinking so we have a clear perspective. We've lost our way in the larger body politic but sometimes we're able to rekindle that idea in new places like this forum.

[GRG55]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

It's the cost of traditional energy that varies greatly, not the cost of solar panels. In the Northwest US a kWh of electricity is about 6 cents so 300 kWhs costs about $18. In California, PG&E Tier 5 residential electrical rates are 45 cents a kWh so 300 kWhs costs $135. The average is under 12 cents per kWh or about $35.

A typical residential solar installation costs $6.50-$7.50 per watt and 40-50% of that is off set by incentives and tax credits. In the case of a PG&E customer in California, the incentive is $1.10 and the federal tax credit is 30% of the remaining cost. If a solar energy system costs $7.00 to install, subtract $1.10 and then take 30% from the remaining amount to get $4.13. Divide by the current cost of energy, 45 cents and you'll get a simple payback of just over 9 years. This is typical in our industry.

So the variables are competing energy costs and local incentive programs. Total incentives vary from 30% to 85% depending on where you live in the US. In some locations it still makes no economic sense to add solar.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Yes, thanks.

Solar power outshining Colorado's gas industry

Oct 11, 12:09 AM EDT

DURANGO, Colo. (AP) -- The sun had just crested the distant ridge of the Rocky Mountains, but already it was producing enough power for the electric meter on the side of the Smiley Building to spin backward.

For the Shaw brothers, who converted the downtown arts building and community center into a miniature solar power plant two years ago, each reverse rotation subtracts from their monthly electric bill. It also means the building at that moment is producing more electricity from the sun than it needs.

"Backward is good," said John Shaw, who now runs Shaw Solar and Energy Conservation, a local solar installation company...

...As La Plata County in southwestern Colorado looks to shift to cleaner sources of energy, solar is becoming the power source of choice even though it still produces only a small fraction of the region's electricity.

It's being nudged along by tax credits and rebates, a growing concern about the gases heating up the planet, and the region's plentiful sunshine.

The natural gas industry, which produces more gas here than nearly every other county in Colorado, has been relegated to the shadows.

Tougher state environmental regulations and lower natural gas prices have slowed many new drilling permits. As a result, production - and the jobs that come with it - have leveled off...

...Much more than energy is at stake. Local and state governments across the country also depend on taxes paid by natural gas companies to fund schools, repair roads and pay other bills.

In La Plata County alone, the industry is responsible for hundreds of jobs and pays for more than half of the property taxes. In addition, about 6,000 residents who own the mineral rights beneath their property get a monthly royalty check from the companies harvesting oil and gas...

...Yes, the power company will pay the city to use less of its power. That's because the solar will count toward a state mandate to boost renewable energy production.

"In the typical business model, it doesn't work," said Greg Munro, the cooperative's executive director. "Why would I give rebates to somebody buying someone else's shoes?"

The same upfront costs have prevented homeowners from jumping on the solar bandwagon despite the tax credits, rebates and lower electricity bills.

Most of Shaw's customers can't afford to install enough solar to cover 100 percent of their homes' electricity needs, which is one reason why solar supplies just a fraction of the power the county needs.

The higher fossil-fuel prices that could come with climate legislation would make it more competitive.

"You can't drive an industry on people doing the right thing. The best thing for this country is if gas were $10 a gallon," said Shaw, as he watched two of his three full-time workers install the last solar panels on a barn outside town.

The private residence, nestled in a remote canyon, probably will produce more power from the sun than it will use, causing its meter to spin in reverse like the Smiley Building's. The cost, however, is steep: more than $500,000.

[c1ue]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

3.) Last time I checked our electric bill in California, 29 days cost over $300 with only about 19 CENTS being for nuclear power plant de-commissioning;

Sure, but of the $63.92 in question - $0.08 was nuclear decommissioning, $1.68 was public purpose programs, $1.36 was DWR bond charge, $2.04 was ongoing CTC, and $0.64 was energy cost recovery amount for a total of $5.80 - or almost 10%. Throw in the $4.85 in taxes and we're talking a major portion has nothing to do with the power itself.

But more interesting is that $26.97 is transmission and distribution.

Once again I point out that a far better investment for energy savings - without major consumer capital investment and/or government subsidies for new consumer stuff - would be improving the efficiency of transmission, distribution, and storage of electricity.

If that is your monthly usage, I'm impressed. Almost no Americans can manage to live with that amount of electricity. Seriously, everyone lives like c1ue, problem solved.

Almost all Americans are wasteful morons. Despite being a 'denier', I conserve far more than most 'greens'.

It's actually twice that much...:eek:, 300 kWh per meter = 3 meters x 12 months or 36 sq. meters. To put this into perspective, that's 360 sq. feet American. The last time I checked that would fit in about 15% of the average American's roof space.

And again, the problem is that sprawl has been encouraged in the United States ever since the first Long Island development projects. And again, the beauty of capitalism is that the consumer is getting charged extra for what previously was a public utility.

This is exactly like selling ice to Eskimos.

Were the technology so wonderful, why then don't the utility companies subsidize installation? Why should the federal government be doing so?

That's why it's most popular in two countries that have plenty of room to sprawl...Japan and Germany...

I can't speak for Germany, but I can speak that in Japan there are almost zero solar installations in the major city centers. Besides the problems of pollution reducing the effectiveness of solar panels (and requiring frequent cleaning), the average 4 story buildings in say Tokyo have far less than the 360 square meters of roof space per family.

Again, the main attraction is for those 'sprawl' homes that are being built.

As an ex-Angeleno who smoked the California crack for several decades, can I warn that this is not a thesis you want to embrace? Your perspective is coming from your observation of the California life style and not the reality of renewable energy as it's practiced outside CA.

This viewpoint is no different for say, New Hampshire, than it is for Los Angeles. In both cases you have homes with relatively large separation between them - thus causing both electrical transmission/distribution costs and personal/goods transport costs to rise.

Or are you trying to tell me that people don't drive much in the rest of the US?

I've lived or worked in more than a dozen states; every single one had the 'car habit' to a similar extent. For every 35000 mile/year California driver, there is the Austin Texas rancher wannabe driving 60 miles one way commuting to work, or Phoenix suburb dweller driving 30 miles to work one way every day. What do you think happens when entire towns creep across the landscape, shedding old homes behind them like hermit crabs dumping old shells?

The 15000 miles/year/vehicle averaged by the entire US is a fine example: throwing out 3000 miles for vacations, you still end up with 1000 miles/month = 30+ miles a day. In contrast the average miles driven in Japan is 6000. In Germany, 10,600 km/year = 6600 miles/year.

Then the US also tends to have 1 car per person of driving age leading to a household average of 33000 miles/year. In Japan the number of driving age adults to cars ratio is much lower.

So perhaps you might explain more why this thesis is incorrect.

[GRG55]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

...The 15000 miles/year/vehicle averaged by the entire US is a fine example: throwing out 3000 miles for vacations, you still end up with 1000 miles/month = 30+ miles a day. In contrast the average miles driven in Japan is 6000. In Germany, 10,600 km/year = 6600 miles/year...

The USA is a vast country [with enormous resources] compared to Japan or Germany...one of the key reasons neither Japan nor Germany was successful in WWII.

The comparison is apples and oranges...