Solar Roof

Hard to tell from your unusual posting format. If you're talking to me, my consumption numbers are in the above paragraph. I don't have solar for two reasons.

Are you referring to the Schneider link? I addressed what you excerpted. It talks about systems with batteries. I looked at the link, which was to a whole damn website and from what I see there, I don't see an example of a grid tied system, without batteries, that supplies power with the grid down. If you have it, give us the link to that, not a whole website. Good grief.

And yet the whole context of this thread was about the economics, viability of solar. If it's unrealistic, what's the point?

I've said several times, it'll be YEARS before

Are you denying that federal tax credits have been available for a long time in TN? Denying that solar is heavily subsid ized in the USA as a whole? And note that your experience with one five sigma customer doesn't change that.

Here's one example from NJ:

This is just one part of the subsidizing. NJ electric companies are mandated to buy increasing share of "clean" energy. Buying the credits discussed on that link is part of it. For every solar home, whatever TOTAL energy it produces, the state gives the homeowner a certificate showing X amount of power was produced. It doesn't matter if the home consumed all of it, part of it, etc. All that matters is the total. Then they have auctions where the power companies bid on those certificates, buy them from the solar home owners, to meet part of their clean energy mandate. On top of that, the utility also pays the homeowner for energy actually put into the grid. Now, that's about as mandated and subsidized as it gets and NJ is not unique. There are obviously other tax breaks, federal state, etc., rebates, etc.

I never said there was a federally mandated requirement. I said there was federal subsidies in the form of tax credits. TN is part of the USA, no? But an example of a federal mandate is the EPA was in the process of forcing utilities in the USA to get an increasing share of their energy from sources that don't produce CO2. Trump is apparently gutting that, but states, eg NJ are already doing it.

I didn't claim that TN specifically was under a mandate. I said it is being used to subsidize solar electric across much of the USA. Have you even been to a solar electric install sales pitch? The first things they tell you are about the tax credits, the rebates, the certificate program here in NJ, etc. It's what it takes to make it competitive. And note your nut case that doesn't give a damn about money, is the exceptional case.

Wheres your proof?

I gave you a direct link to one subsidy program. You came in here apparently totally ignorant of the fact that solar is heavily subsidized. Nuff said.

I shared mine. Are you trying to move

The issue was that solar is heavily subsidized. Everyone here seems to know that except you.

The other issue was whether the huge number of residential solar installs out there can power the house without the grid or without batteries. So far, you've provided nothing to support that claim. Every cite says BATTERIES or a powered up grid.

Which of course is irrelevant. And unless you;re his tax accountant, how would you even know?

and TN isn't playing ball with

For it to be true in many places, doesn't require that it has to be true in TN. Capiche?

Ie: you claimed

Who should we believe, you or the utilities?

Industry officials say they support their customers? right to gener ate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar?s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The ut ility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs ? from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews ? remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vic e president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that repre sents the nation?s investor-owned utilities

You don't have a dog in

You seem to think your one 5 sigma case, if that is even true, represents the typical case, the majority of cases. I do have a dog in the fight. I'm helping pay the freight for my neighbor's solar system here, as outlined by Mike and in the WP article. I'm also paying it in the form of tax subsidies. Give my neighbor a $10K tax break, leaves the rest of us paying more. Capiche?

The system has a finite life.

Why do you keep going back to your one 5 sigma example that isn't representative of most of the installs?

The discussion wasn't about if it made sense for one guy, the discussion was about the true cost of solar installed across the country to supply energy and whether it's economically viable, absent subsidies.

No, he's not. Because the neighbor is buying

he's just not having to pay

And it doesn't fairly represent his using the grid, because the pricing model is based on the old, 100% of your power from the grid. Read the WP.

What he is using is being

Yes they are. This is like a customer buying

He's using alternate power,

And like Mike and I are telling you, if enough of his neighbors did the same thing, the electric company would go broke.

You didn't even know that solar is heavily subsidized and needs to be for it to be viable. THAT was the issue. And it is being subsidized in TN, via fed tax credits. That you have one

BS. We both claimed that the typical residential system, without batteries, is dead when the grid goes down. And even the one your one case guy has is dead according to the manufacturer of that hybrid inverter. The install instructions only show it installed WITH A BATTERY BANK and it says it must be used with a battery bank.

Good grief. Again, context is everything. You talked about your example of a grid tied system with NO BATTERIES. So, Mike asked if your guy was aware that without batteries, if the grid goes down, he has no power. THAT is how every system I've seen, listened to sales pitches for, read about works. Now you've changed your tune, to a scenario that has batteries.

Who should we believe, you or the companies selling and installing it? I've asked several times now, provide us with cites to companies selling it, installing it, where they talk about this great selling feature, that it will work to power your house without the grid and without batteries.

So it won't work in Florida or Arizona or Nevada? Do you want to outlaw it?

I understand that there is some benefit to a distributed generation system with distributed storage.

But what about economy of scale? If we took all those rooftop subsidies and applied them to BIG solar farms, would we be getting more watt-hours for the buck? Maybe you use mirrors and steam instead of PV. And maybe a nuke on site to even things out. When you have a LOT of energy, it opens up alternative storage methods. Pumping water uphill would never make sense for average joe. For a utility company, maybe it does.

The problem with all this is communication. When everybody sees everything that goes on, there's so much opportunity to disagree that all you get is arguing. Maybe we should nuke twitter and get on with doing stuff. You can fix most any bad decision. You can't fix inaction. It appears that inaction costs more than actually doing something. What we have is INACTION.

Not at all. Wherever it's economically feasible, they should do a lot of it.

I want to repurpose the rooftop subsidies to projects that might have a real effect in the long term. I submit that rooftop solar is inefficient use of government resources. You never know what is fake news, but I hear that US rooftop solar is doing a lot for the Chinese economy.

The advantage of rooftop solar is political. The treehuggers and doogooders have no concentration of power to protest. They have no leverage. Why would you protest a handout anyway.

Utilities are a far better place to protest. You can cause the big boys to waste a fortune responding to protests and sitins and stupid requirements that don't make economic sense. Block solar farms. Block wind farms. Block strengthening the grid. You could erase most of the dictionary. Only word protesters need is "NO"! You shouldn't be able to block any project without providing a VIABLE alternative that you will approve and FUND. If you vote against more energy production, let's cut your energy first. See how that plays out when you get to sacrifice for your beliefs. Put your tax dollars where your mouth is. And you don't get to bitch about the stuff that doesn't get done because you diverted the funds.

Second time you've posted this.

I hope anyone else that reads this can see right through the lack of logic in those assertions.

Even though you uppercase "unsustainable", you don't seem to notice how your second, supporting, statement uses the word "impractical" which is quite a different thing.

The word unsustainable is used in an entirely different way when discussing eco-issues. In fact, something can be "impractical" in that it costs more and be sustainable too.

Ain't it wonderful how the USA has achieved energy independence as past presidents have called for?

Yes, you are, intentionally I suspect. You hate being wrong. :)

I was waiting for you to make more unfounded accusations. Looks like I didn't have to wait very long.

I realize you wish that was the case, but, it's not.

I'm only claiming it because i've done it. The company could too, but, they'd have to sell you a small box to do the tie in for you. More work on their part. They may not recoup the costs.

Like I told you, previously (even offered to use crayons), I didn't drag anyone here. Now I'll use crayons and write in a way a small child could understand with ease: I followed them here. You're welcome.

Me personally? No, but, he does report to one of the companies that cuts me a paycheck...I could just take a drive to the jobsite and ask him myself, but, why bother doing so when I can just ask one of the people above me? :)

Well, they're aren't being completely honest. That *could* be blamed on the advertising dept not keeping in synch with the r&D dept, though. I've been in such situations myself with a software company...

That was obvious, the you aren't an expert on this subject, part.

I can tell

So the battery bank is for? crickets, you said, right?

Not really. it's another device the manufacturer would either have to incorporate into the inverter itself, or sell seperately. Without any guarantee of recouping their monies. If they opted to just include it in the inverter, it would require a larger inverter and increase costs. Making them, not as competitive as another.

If and when solar 'takes off', then, they might want to seriously consider making a few design changes, and/or selling the unit seperately. As it is presently, it's very specific to the PV array and the inverter you wish to tie it into.

You still have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Not enough home owners are buying what's already available...

I already did. You looked all over the site, remember?

Yes, actually I do. Back to my original question, though.

Well, that depends on the hardware you have access to, and how much you understand about electronics and transformers. But, I digress. I realize, many people have no useful knowledge of either. With that said, I'm *not* one of those people.

Indeed.

Pot > Kettle > Black

erate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar? ?s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. Th e utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs ? ?? from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance cr ews ? remain the same.

ice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that rep resents the nation?s investor-owned utilities

that has some truth to it but also leaves out some truth. electricity cost more to make during peak times. The power company wants you to use less power during peak times so they don 't have to build a new peaker plant. So there is two sides to this coin. Solar unfairly uses the grid for storage without paying. Solar helps the power company smooth out the peak load.

I think the only fair way to sort this out is to charge the true cost for e ach aspect of usage. One cost for simply connecting to the grid to cover line maintenance. You pay this amount even if your net kWh = 0

Another fee for peak daytime kWh in or out.

Another lower fee for off peak kWh in or out.

The power company of course want to present only the the side of the coin t hat gets them more money.

It does not cost more to make power during peak times, it cost more to buy it during those periods due to the law of supply and demand.

In my area, we pay a flat fee for access to the grid, in other words, everyone who is connected to the grid, pays to support the grid.

The utility company is getting quite a bargain as the price they pay individual solar generators is significantly less then they would pay to buy power from a commercial producer.

Already exists in many regions.

Rates in our region are based upon total use, not time of day. The more you use, the more you pay based upon a tiered rate structure.

Electronics and transformers are not going to make up for the lack of sun or a battery bank. A generator would.

enerate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar? ?s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. Th e utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs ? ?? from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance cr ews ? remain the same.

vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that r epresents the nation?s investor-owned utilities

each aspect of usage.

that gets them more money.

I think that's where the utilites are too. They are just saying that now that solar is expanding, we need a new pricing model to accurately and fairly distribute the costs.

generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar? ??s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowne rs with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bill s, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs ? from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews ? remain the same.

e vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nation?s investor-owned utilities

That isn't true in most states, it's actually the direct opposite. In most states, the utilities are buying power from residential solar at the full retail price of electricity, not at the wholesale rate they would pay to buy it from other sources on the grid.

r each aspect of usage.

IDK where these many regions are. Here in NJ for example, half of my electric bill is for distribution. If you have a $150 bill, about $75 is for generation, $75 for distribution. If I used zero, my bill would be zero. What is the cost of this fixed grid charge for you, that is separate from the cost for the energy used? Seems if this arrangement was widespread, the utilities would not all be fighting to do something to fix the problem.

Can't argue with that, BUT!!! If you're supplementing the grid with rooftop solar, what happens when the sun don't shine? Would you be happy with rolling blackouts during bad weather when the grid can't supply enough peak power?

We already have that in Oregon. When I looked into time of use billing, the extra fees were higher than what I could save on electricity. The more frugal you are with resources, the less you benefit. We can also sign up for renewal energy. For a higher fee, all our electricity comes from renewable sources. People actually fall for that scam. They move a number from one part of the spreadsheet to another part and claim that saves the planet. People think that actually makes a difference. Would be more efficient and more fair to raise everybody's rate to invest in renewables. Why do we insist on penalizing those who want to help? Guess it's all about the sound bite.

coin that gets them more money.

The power company is no more evil than anybody else. They're making the best of what happens when you let regulators and tree huggers into the mix.

Fixed price from the utility.

Just addressing this one point:

Bzzzzzzzzt.

Generators are a trade off between initial cost, maintenance expenses, efficiency (fuel to electricity), type of fuel, and etc.

For those 24 hour baseline plants you don't care much about initial cost, but you do careabout the others. Hence those tend to be the big and lumbering, steam powered, coal-transitioning-to-other-fuels monsters.

Cost per kw-hr is pretty low.

Now for that "peaking", "quick response", generator you're (well, the utility orr its partner) is firing up at 3 pm? That's going to be a less efficient one, probably cheaper to initially install but it's only used for four hours..., and will be running with natural gas or oil - faster to ramp up.

So yes, the actual price of production of that kw-hr from those 4 pm peaking turbine or other quickie... will be higher than that from the lumbering,

I suspect (strongly) they could build what I did at much lower cost, faster, etc. However, that doesn't mean enough people would BUY the unit to justify the costs involved. It's not a very complicated device, actually. It allows you to tie the PV array in, without a battery bank to the battery bank terminals on the inverter unit. So that as long as the PV is providing adequate voltage, your unit can run in the event the grid goes down. I'm obviously not the first one to come up with the idea, SMA beat me to it, but, mine makes more wattage available, again, as long as the PV array is providing a semi specific amount of voltage to it. If it's unable to do so, my gizmo won't be able to do it's job and the inverter won't get the power it needs. Do you understand what I'm writing about yet? You're an electrical engineer, right? It *should have been* obvious what was going on from the first time I mentioned no battery bank, but still able to run, without the grid.

Or, am I confused on what electrical engineers actually do? That *IS* possible, since i'm not one.

I wouldn't be so quick to laugh, as SMA obviously knows what I'm doing, since they incorporated similar technology in one of their units, themselves.

But, MINE makes more wattage available so that the inverter actually thinks it's taking advantage of a small, battery bank, when it's actually using the PV array. Of course, this doesn't come without limits. My box has to have a minimum amount of voltage coming from the array, or, it will NOT be able to generate the 48volts at so many amps required to run the inverter which can run this particular clients house.

And, it can do this because his house appliances (the stuff that pulls the serious wattage) are GAS, not electric. So the inverter is basically supplying power for lighting circuits, and some home entertainment gear. Nothing it cannot handle, nothing that's going to put it in an overload condition, either.

Yes. See above.

Actually, I said nothing of the sort.

So that was a no to my question then.

Not if it's connected via interlock, it doesn't...

For a given insolation, a PV panel looks more like a current source than a voltage source. Depending on where the operating point sits on the V-I curve, relatively small changes in load can have a major effect on the voltage and cause your inverter to behave badly. A smart inverter would shutdown until you reset it or the voltage in dropped to a very low voltage, AKA dark.

A not so smart inverter would shutdown, but the load going away would let the voltage rise to the point it restarted. Repeat until smoke, then repeat some more. It's called a limit-cycle oscillation. It's very bad for electrical equipment.

Building a PV system with neither local storage nor grid tie is a fool's errand.