Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

State solar users would lose savings if proposal is OK'd; SolarCity describes 'catastrophic' future


Recommended Posts

"They push customers to save energy," Espinoza said. "When we go the extra mile to get solar panels, then they want to add these fees. It's just not right."

 

i get that the utility companies need to make money, but there's got to be a more reasonable solution here. solar customers not produce enough energy to run their own house, but excess energy is sold back to edison (or whoever) for them to use. that kind of practice should be encourage, not penalized. work out a solution for this, people, not a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They push customers to save energy," Espinoza said. "When we go the extra mile to get solar panels, then they want to add these fees. It's just not right."

 

i get that the utility companies need to make money, but there's got to be a more reasonable solution here. solar customers not produce enough energy to run their own house, but excess energy is sold back to edison (or whoever) for them to use. that kind of practice should be encourage, not penalized. work out a solution for this, people, not a penalty.

Yes.  Edison (and the other power providers) have enjoyed a virtual monopoly and solar energy is a competitior to them.  My take is they don't want to have to change their business model.  They've enjoyed a full run of the state for decades and now they are losing money.  In the interests of competition, I say, "tough shit."

 

If they wanted to maintain a place at the table, THEY should have been solar innovators 25 years ago.  If this ruling goes agains the consumer and sloar panel companies, it will be the end of solar.  There will no longer be any incentives to buy and energy companies will have won by maintaining the status quo.

 

The best solution is a compromise.  I like what one of the dudes said about a monthly maintenance fee (reasonable), but the consumer also gets to keep their 1:1 credits (incentive). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i think that the energy companies are fearing, and nothing really alludes to it.  

 

But remember Solar City is a sub/owned by Musk.  And he is building the gigafactory in Nevada.  This is his ace in the hole.  Because even if the electric car doesn't hit the mainstream.  Megawatt battery backup in the home can make the electric company obsolete overnight.  (They announced a home version of it earlier, and it sold out)  Especially in Southern California.  

 

I was actually thinking about this earlier when I saw something at Lowes.  But you have solar up top.  But instead of enough to keep you level, have 2-3 extra panels.  (Which the electric company does not want you to do.)  Have a megawatt battery recharged, to use overnight.  And in those off days when you have no sun, and no more juice in the battery.  Have a portable generator to recharge.  

 

Buh bye electric company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have eight panels and I'd like to add more, but there is cost associated.  Solar City was the lease providor.  Being in Southern California, it's great for the sun/power conversion.  However, the flip side is that we also need air conditioning 4-5 months of the year.  I'm not sure there are ANY batteries that can run a whole house A/C system and be even cost neutral. I need the grid no matter what.  I'm sure most of us are like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They push customers to save energy," Espinoza said. "When we go the extra mile to get solar panels, then they want to add these fees. It's just not right."

 

i get that the utility companies need to make money, but there's got to be a more reasonable solution here. solar customers not produce enough energy to run their own house, but excess energy is sold back to edison (or whoever) for them to use. that kind of practice should be encourage, not penalized. work out a solution for this, people, not a penalty.

The process of connecting a house to the grid in a way that they can safely pump energy back into the grid is extremely expensive to do correctly. AC inverters are the most expensive component of small scale photovoltaic systems, and there have to be failsafes to ensure that you don't for example electrify the neutral wire and cause injury to someone repairing the power lines. 

 

The most efficient approach would be a shift away from using AC power for everything, and the introduction of an in-house DC power standard. Just about any device that does not have a motor in it either converts AC to DC right off the bat (e.g. TVs, computers, battery chargers, most forms of lighting), or could just as easily be run on DC (any appliance with a heating element). Installing an expensive inverter to convert DC from the solar into AC only for most of that to get rectified and transformed back to DC is just silly if not for large tax subsidies.

 

 

The biggest problem I see with this article is the pricing structure that punishes households that use little power with higher rates or highly priced fixed fees for connecting to the grid are bullshit though. Pricing structure should be set up in such a way that it encourages less energy consumption in the first place by rewarding lightl users, not just punishing heavy users. If people who use few KWh per month decide "I'm paying the same if I save power or not, screw it", then a lot of the entire environmental benefit of distributed solar could be negated by wasteful power usage being incentivized.  

 

 

I have eight panels and I'd like to add more, but there is cost associated.  Solar City was the lease providor.  Being in Southern California, it's great for the sun/power conversion.  However, the flip side is that we also need air conditioning 4-5 months of the year.  I'm not sure there are ANY batteries that can run a whole house A/C system and be even cost neutral. I need the grid no matter what.  I'm sure most of us are like that. 

 

Batteries, like AC intervers, are an unnecessary intermediate step that requires heavy expense and efficiency loss. Soemthing like a supplementary Air conditioning system that runs directly on DC output from the solar would be the simplest approach to take. 

 

As far as dealing with brownouts resulting from air conditioner demand putting stress on the grid, IMO the approach to take there would be to promote cooling systems that make ice at night (when electricity is cheaper and the grid is less taxed) and use that to help cool the house during the day. 

Edited by ScottLux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat me going off on a tangent but stuff like this just makes me wonder how much money from the likes of the electric company, car companies and so on has delayed or flat out put an end to the creation and widespread use of other products that would be much more efficient, cheaper and better off for the world.  It also makes me wonder what kind of technology or advances haven't happened or aren't as mainstream as they should be because of how much money and pull some of these companies have.  Kind of like when you'd hear about Microsoft stamping out some small company with a great product because they could afford to and it was a threat to them. 

Edited by Catwhoshatinthehat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, cat. It seems we've stifled a lot of creativity in order to placate the heavy hitters throwing all their bribes at politicians so they can continue to manipulate certain markets.

Even the current rules allowing homeowners to sell electricity back to the grid at full price (no price spread between buying and selling power) was pushed for by LA Department of Water and Power, who had already been pumping water uphill at night and selling power back during the daytime. That rule increased their revenue by billions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat me going off on a tangent but stuff like this just makes me wonder how much money from the likes of the electric company, car companies and so on has delayed or flat out put an end to the creation and widespread use of other products that would be much more efficient, cheaper and better off for the world.  It also makes me wonder what kind of technology or advances haven't happened or aren't as mainstream as they should be because of how much money and pull some of these companies have.  Kind of like when you'd hear about Microsoft stamping out some small company with a great product because they could afford to and it was a threat to them. 

You really don't have to wonder. If something was possible, another country without those companies would have it. What we don't have enough of that other countries have, because our government prevents it, seriously, is nuclear. 

 

All other countries are abandoning or cutting back their solar and wind projects because they suck. 

Edited by Juan Savage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't have to wonder. If something was possible, another country without those companies would have it. What we don't have enough of that other countries have because the government prevents it, seriously, is nuclear.

All other countries are abandoning or cutting back their solar and wind projects because they suck.

Got any proof of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevada Power was backing a similar proposal here, to eliminate the tax benefits for solar users and to eliminate the requirement that they buy back any surplus power. They also wanted a minimum monthly bill for solar users. Fortunately the Public Utilities Commission shot them down.

This is the same utility who encouraged all of us to use multiple power saving strategies so that they wouldn't have to build new plants or buy power on the open market, then asked for a rate increase when we did because their revenue was down.

Edited by Vegas Halo Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have eight panels and I'd like to add more, but there is cost associated.  Solar City was the lease providor.  Being in Southern California, it's great for the sun/power conversion.  However, the flip side is that we also need air conditioning 4-5 months of the year.  I'm not sure there are ANY batteries that can run a whole house A/C system and be even cost neutral. I need the grid no matter what.  I'm sure most of us are like that. 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have AC.  But really on the westside, only need it a few days a year, and fans can do the trick.

 

So, F all you power hoggers.  With all due respect.   :P

 

Also, AC is really only needed when it's hot. Which is usually during the day.  Which probably would mean your solar panels are getting plenty of sun.  If you need your a/c at night.  Global warming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process of connecting a house to the grid in a way that they can safely pump energy back into the grid is extremely expensive to do correctly. AC inverters are the most expensive component of small scale photovoltaic systems, and there have to be failsafes to ensure that you don't for example electrify the neutral wire and cause injury to someone repairing the power lines. 

 

The most efficient approach would be a shift away from using AC power for everything, and the introduction of an in-house DC power standard. Just about any device that does not have a motor in it either converts AC to DC right off the bat (e.g. TVs, computers, battery chargers, most forms of lighting), or could just as easily be run on DC (any appliance with a heating element). Installing an expensive inverter to convert DC from the solar into AC only for most of that to get rectified and transformed back to DC is just silly if not for large tax subsidies.

 

 

The biggest problem I see with this article is the pricing structure that punishes households that use little power with higher rates or highly priced fixed fees for connecting to the grid are bullshit though. Pricing structure should be set up in such a way that it encourages less energy consumption in the first place by rewarding lightl users, not just punishing heavy users. If people who use few KWh per month decide "I'm paying the same if I save power or not, screw it", then a lot of the entire environmental benefit of distributed solar could be negated by wasteful power usage being incentivized.  

 

 
 

Batteries, like AC intervers, are an unnecessary intermediate step that requires heavy expense and efficiency loss. Soemthing like a supplementary Air conditioning system that runs directly on DC output from the solar would be the simplest approach to take. 

 

As far as dealing with brownouts resulting from air conditioner demand putting stress on the grid, IMO the approach to take there would be to promote cooling systems that make ice at night (when electricity is cheaper and the grid is less taxed) and use that to help cool the house during the day. 

 

Not going to argue, since it sounds like you know your shit.  

 

But AC (Alternating Current?) vs DC (Direct Current).  Looking at the Edison vs Tesla wars that was on the history or discovery or sci fi or some cable channel.  According to them.  The benefits of AC were distance and efficiency.  Where DC was power, but because of the grid, it got to be a nightmare since it couldn't travel long distances, and it was wiring hell.  Their portrayal was, with AC, you could have an alternating current work from Niagra Falls to NY City.  But DC you would have to have all these power stations in between to make it work.  

 

So what I'm getting at is.  Electric companies want AC power.  But for home use, when distance isn't a factor, DC is a better option.  But because electric companies want it their way.  They don't want anyone going DC.  Even though in So Cal, DC is the way to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...