Floridian (and Southern) Governmental Regulations Are Unfriendly To Solar Power 306
An anonymous reader writes with a link to a story in the LA Times: "Few places in the country are so warm and bright as Mary Wilkerson's property on the beach near St. Petersburg, Fla., a city once noted in the Guinness Book of World Records for a 768-day stretch of sunny days. But while Florida advertises itself as the Sunshine State, power company executives and regulators have worked successfully to keep most Floridians from using that sunshine to generate their own power. Wilkerson discovered the paradox when she set out to harness sunlight into electricity for the vintage cottages she rents out at Indian Rocks Beach. She would have had an easier time installing solar panels, she found, if she had put the homes on a flatbed and transported them to chilly Massachusetts. While the precise rules vary from state to state, one explanation is the same: opposition from utilities grown nervous by the rapid encroachment of solar firms on their business."
Re: Translated into English (Score:5, Informative)
While that's true for lots of the objections raised, it isn't true for all of them. This, for example:
When Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., installed solar panels a few years ago, for example, the local utility, Dominion Virginia Power, threatened legal action. The utility said that only it could sell electricity in its service area.
Government-created incumbent monopolies seem to be playing their part as well.
Re:Translated into English (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, here [osceolaenergy.com] is what the prices are where I live - both before and after the credits. For my house (2 adults and 4 kids) we need the 3.3 kWh system which is $13.8K before credits, $8.3K after. That is parts + installation + 25 year warranty on inverter and panels. (This works out to a break-even of 7 years after the credits because it would offset $100/mo in electricity bills.)
I am left wondering how it could be $35K / cottage in Florida. Maybe it's to go off-grid altogether, thus requiring storage? I'm getting just enough to ensure I'll rarely produce a net excess in any single month. The rate at which the power company buys excess electricity isn't attractive so I don't want to over-produce long-term, but you can over-produce during the day and 'bank' it until night, and carry a little (up to $50 worth) over from one month to the next.
Then they preach to the world about capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
While the precise rules vary from state to state, one explanation is the same: opposition from utilities grown nervous by the rapid encroachment of solar firms on their business.
What troubles me is the fact that even while all this is going on, the US government preaches to the world about capitalism and free enterprise. What hypocrisy!
One definition of free enterprise that the US government conveniently chooses to ignore:
Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy, also called free market.
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Informative)
(Lucky me, it is 7.54 here in Albuquerque. Now excuse me while I put on another layer of sunscreen.)
Re:Translated into English (Score:5, Informative)
> Florida gets half to one quarter the solar energy at the rooftop that California
Where did you POSSIBLY come up with that?!
Bakersfield gets 1461 kWh/kW/year
Tampa gets 1364 kWh/kW/year
Here, do it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/
Re:Does anyone blame them? (Score:4, Informative)
He's correct and the article you point to doesn't say what you think it does.
Utility grade PV is cheaper than nuclear power without subsidy. With continued price drops that solar has been experiencing for the last 4 years Utility grade solar PV will be cheaper than coal by 2020.
Companies like First Solar have their entire production for the next 4 years already sold to utility scale power plants. A Utah power company just purchased all the power out of a solar plant being built nearby because it was the cheapest power available.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org]
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Informative)
> Florida gets half to one quarter the solar energy at the rooftop that California
Where did you POSSIBLY come up with that?!
Bakersfield gets 1461 kWh/kW/year
Tampa gets 1364 kWh/kW/year
Here, do it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/
I got it from eyeballing http://www.trbimg.com/img-53e6... [trbimg.com] so why does that map show FL in green not yellow? Apparently whoever chose the color scale on that map made the yellow band way too narrow.
but yes, that was very very inaccurate rough math.
I'm sure Bakersfield is the entire state of California.
Now if you don't believe that Bakersfield fills the entire state you could look for areas with higher solar insolation.
For example
Victorville, CA Annual Avg. (kWh/m2/day): 8.15 vs
Tamp, FL Annual Avg. (kWh/m2/day): 4.98
Nope it isn't twice the solar insulation but it's getting up there.
So edit my erroneous statement to something more like:
No the cost isn't just being subsidized. Florida gets half to 3/4 the solar energy at the rooftop that California gets to for the same power usage you have to install more panels.
Another factor is hurricanes. In California you can use cheaper panels because they don't have to be rated to withstand hurricane force winds. Even if you use the same number of panels in an Florida installation you'll have to pay for more expensive panels and more expensive mounting brackets/rail systems. Everything has to be stronger in a state that is likely to see a hurricane every few years when the panels would otherwise last >30 years.
With no subsidy in either state you'd still spend more for solar PV to get the same power in Florida.
Big deal (Score:4, Informative)
I've got 4 100 watt panels that send power to my desk. All my devices and this computer are powered by what is stored in the battery that is in a box nearby.
My next 1000 watts will go to run the pool and all my backyard lighting. The power company can cry all it wants, but eventually my entire house will be off the grid.
Florida Is Crazy (Score:5, Informative)
Poor and misleading summary (Score:3, Informative)
A more correct interpretation is that some states have a strong Public Utilities Commission that narrowly interprets public utility laws in a way that negatively impacts *some* solar business models.
In particular the solar business model that installs panels for free or at some low lease cost, and then sells the electricity created to the homeowner (and excess to the grid). In this case, the PUC sees the situation that someone has chosen to build a small electric power plant and sell electricity to a other parties. The notion that the primary customer is a single homeowner or business is immaterial. A company that builds electric power plants for the purpose of selling electricity to other parties is to be regulated under the same laws as any other electric utility company.
If you want solar power for your house, you are free to buy panels and have them installed at your own expense and you can reap the benefits of your self-generated electricity. There may still be issues involving whether and how you can sell excess power back into the grid.
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that Solar panels only have a effective life span of 15 years
"Many manufacturers currently give a double power warranty for their products, typically 90% of the initial maximum power after 10 years and 80% of the original maximum power after 25 years. Applying the same criteria (taking into account modules electrical performance only and assuming 25% measurement uncertainty of a testing lab) only 176% of modules failed (35 modules out of 204 tested). Remarkably even if we consider the initial warranty period i.e. 10% of Pmax after 10 years, more than 657% of modules exposed for 20 years exceed this criteria."
Thus nearly 2/3 of tested panels lost less than 10% of their output after 20 years. Your number for effective lifespan is way off.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [wiley.com]
Except that's not the case at all (Score:5, Informative)
If they had purchased equipment, then that would be the case as you put it.
But these instances focus on a particular business model where "customers" do not buy or install the panels. Instead, they allow another party to install panels at their expense (the installing company remains the owner of the panels throughout) while agreeing to buy electricity generated from the panels.
In other words, they allow someone to build a solar electric plant on their property and further agree to purchase electricity from that plant. Kinda like Verizon and Sprint giving you "free" phones so long as you agree to a two year contract for cellular service. You might not buy the $800 phone otherwise.
This keeps the property-owners initial costs low while locking them into a long term electricity contract. And it makes the provider a public utility--they build plants and sell electricity to customers--and therefore are unhappy to find themselves categorized and regulated as such under the laws governing public utilities.
Re:Translated into English (Score:5, Informative)
> You aren't considering weather.
*sigh*
Solar insolation numbers *include all effects including weather*. Did you even bother to click the link before playing the fool?
Re:Translated into English (Score:5, Informative)
As a homeowner in Florida who just installed solar despite the obstacles, you are wrong. A good 25% of the cost of my system went into satisfying bullshit governmental regulations.
To wit:
1. Paying for "engineering" to prove that the panel mounting system met hurricane code, despite the panel attachment system being a commercial off the shelf product used with those panels and on roofs typical of my roof construction on thousands of homes already.
2. Paying for "engineering" for the electrical system with a stamp on it from the Florida Solar Energy Center, again despite the fact that one can easily point to the engineering done for thousands of similar systems. Doubly stupid considering my system is micro-inverter based, so in the end it's all phase-locked AC power going into a single 10 gauge cable that any electrician could tell you is big enough to handle the peak amperage of my system.
Those engineering fees and doc stamps cost several thousand dollars. In the end, I think the panel cost of my system was probably only 20% of the total.
The state government could EASILY reduce the cost of systems 20% by codifying and approving standard products, much like the Miami-Dade country certification for hurricane windows instead of requiring bespoke engineering for each project.
So the article is correct--the Florida government is making harder and less financially viable for its citizens to have rooftop solar PV. I'm rich. I live in an expensive part of town. I'd say less than 1% of homes, maybe only 1/10th of 1% of homes have solar PV my area. (The number for solar hot water is substantially higher though)
Re: Translated into English (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sunergysystems.com/residential-solar/washington-state-solar-incentives
Yet, you see few installations even though the power companies here will happily pay you if you produce excess.
The problem is, per kwh it is so inexpensive due to being mainly hydroelectric and has only increased 2% since 2011 that it takes a long time to pay off the investment as we just don't get the 200+ sunny days of Virginia or Florida.
Western Washington gets around 160 days with at least partially sunny days and the east around 180 with moderate winters.
Florida:
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Florida/annual-days-of-sunshine.php
Virginia:
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Virginia/annual-days-of-sunshine.php
Washington:
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Washington/annual-days-of-sunshine.php
So if you live where you can get the most use out of it it's hard to get and heavily regulated. If you live where it's less effective and electricity prices are cheap (making for a very slow return on investment), it's easy to get.
Why am I not surprised?
2014 residential energy prices by state:
http://www.freeby50.com/2014/06/residential-electricity-costs-by-state.html