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."
Translated into English (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all states offer subsidies as generous as the solar industry thinks they deserve.
This isn't news, it's politics by other means.
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, Interesting)
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.
I wish they had sued. They would have lost as a matter of law, without risk of a jury trial.
I can just see the hearing now.
"Your honor, I'd like to enter into evidence Exhibit A: a solar powered calculator from Dollar General.
"Your honor, I'd like to enter into evidence Exhibit B: a solar powered yard light from Home Depot.
"Your honor, I'd like to enter into evidence Exhibit C: a gasoline generator from Harbor Freight.
"These products are legal in the state of Virginia, are they not? And they all generate electricity? So we're agreed that my client purchased equipment, and not electricity?"
"Yeah, case dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff to pay defendant's court costs and attorneys fees."
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, Interesting)
Except none of your examples involve selling the power. DVP isn't saying you can't generate your own power. They are just saying that you cannot sell it, especially over their grid. They have a mandate to provide power to everyone. If others can generate and sell power, they will pick the low hanging fruit, and sell power only in dense areas, and only to customers with a load profile that matches their generating source. DVP will be left with rural customers, and those with demand during peaks. Getting rid of the monopoly means also getting rid of the mandate, resulting in many people paying higher prices.
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The keyword there is sell. They're not objecting to her generating solar power for her own use, they only object to her selling it to others. That's what a monopoly means.
Re: Translated into English (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, they sure do like the granted right-of-way that allows their grid to exist.
Re: Translated into English (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, they sure do like the granted right-of-way that allows their grid to exist.
As does the vast majority of the population. Imagine how much your utilities would cost if the utility companies had to pay rent to each property owner that their wires, pipes, cables, etc., crossed.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say there was no public good in that, just that it does permit the power company to exist in the first place. Given that, it is reasonable to expect them to tread lightly.
For example, rather than suing claiming only they may generate power, they could put the figures together for the cost of the grid vs. the power that moves through it and work with their PSC to come to a fair and balanced solution.
Re: (Score:2)
long solved problem, operation of grid-tie inverters covered in the National Electric code.
Re: (Score:3)
The article is a bit misleading. I don't know about that specific house, and the article sure isn't clear other than "Indian Rocks Beach". I know of people in the area who do use solar panels, and are grid-tied.
I see a few potential problems.
First, she rents the property, so the owner may not want it.
Second, the property may be deed restricted as part of a HOA. For example, my house is in a HOA but enforces nothing. My mom's house is also,
Re: (Score:3)
My mom can't even have a digital satellite dish or even a small mast antenna.
This is all too common for HOAs, and it is illegal. Contact the FCC, and they'll help you resolve that.
Source [fcc.gov]
Remember, HOAs have nothing but contract law to support them, and must abide by ALL of your local laws. Many places have laws about who can install solar panels, and the HOA has to abide by this.
Re: (Score:2)
All news is politics by other means.
Yeah, whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all states offer subsidies as generous as the solar industry thinks they deserve.
Its about long term thinking.
The fossil fuel industry has so many tax and environmental subsidies and costs that go ignored by most people. Duke power dumps a shit load of coal ash into a river and WE the taxpayer pays for it in more ways than money. And there''s the economic consequences - that cost Duke nothing.
Fossil fuels are old, polluting - MUCH more than the manufacture of solar cells and other green energy, and cause health problems that are paid down the line in increased healthcare costs and deaths.
When fossil fuels are drilled or mined is has environmental and health costs. When it transported and burned it has environmental and health costs.
When a solar cell is made, that's the end - all the environmental and health costs are over with. And nuclear? Pfft. The used fuel is nothing compared to the shit: mercury and other crop being spewed by fossil fuels.
Why we can't progress beyond 19th century energy sources?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, whatever. (Score:4, Interesting)
Citation: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... [nytimes.com] (admittedly behind a paywall but they paid less than $100K in fines. They also promised to clean up the other 24 accidents waiting to happen that they own just in N. Carolina. And this is after they "defanged" the state regulatory board.
Re: (Score:2)
no, some states the utilities don't want to spend the money to buy the electricity from people and it's too much buying solar with a huge battery to store the electricity for later use.
and for reference, here in NYC the only solar panels i see are on some businesses like whole foods who can afford to spend the cash for the wiring to send excess electricity back to the utility. and as a residential customer the last thing i want to do is pay for the wiring for a few people to make money on their homes
Re: (Score:2)
And people like you is why the world will burn.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the article these lease agreements are illegal in Florida.
This does sound like distortion of the market, because a common practice, that makes it possible for home onwers to create their own electrical power and sell excess power to other people, is stifled by laws.
Re: (Score:2)
yep, correct, the lease business model states that they sell at full consumer rates to the electric company, not at the producers rate ( which is cheaper )
so then I have to ask you...
I own 100K sqft of usable, full sunshine roofs
I lease that out and sell it at full market
I get YOU and everyone around me to buy at full market rate (via the power company)
I just profited off of you and the electric company
How happy are you going to be that I did not have to pay for
Maintenance of the line carrying my charge, t
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Insightful)
and furthermore this from the article:
Under the typical business model for the solar industry, homeowners sign lease agreements with installation companies. The homeowners pay the cost of the panels over time and sell any excess power the systems generate. ...
States where solar thrives typically pay homeowners attractive rates for the excess power they generate and require utilities to get a considerable share of their power from renewable sources. That gives companies an incentive to promote use of solar.
What this is about is that the local utilities are FORCED to purchase the solar panel's excess generation whether they need it or not. At retail rates the utilities are forced to pay are in excess of what it costs the utility to generate and distribute power.
Usual Wiki link, usual caveat,
scroll down to see a list of states and see which states have retail pricing net metering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
How long would Kroger stay in business if it bought apples orchards sold apples to Kroger for 50 cents and Kroger then sold them in stores for 75 cents, but the state passed a law requiring Kroger to pay 75 cents to any individual who brought apples into the store? It sounds like it would be a wash, except that Kroger's cost
for the apples isn't actually 50 cents. Kroger has to buy land, pay taxes and utilities, transport the apples and so on.
The solar power buy-back prices vary wildly across the US, In some states net-metering is the retail price like in the kroger analogy, and in others it is the wholesale price
I can't think of any other industry besides solar whose business model requires laws to require a business (utilities) to purchase their own product from the customers at retail prices whenever the customer feels like having a surplus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Insightful)
- prohibit financing constructions for solar that are otherwise common for everything else (specifically leasing)
This could come back to bite utilities in the ass. Equipment leasing and lease back arrangements are major tax shelters in the utility business. All one would need to do is to take the anti solar lease laws into court and show how they discriminate against one business in favor of another. And then ask the court to apply the leasing prohibitions against all businesses equally.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
The real problem is and remains subsidy. The lease is pointless without the subsidy.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the link he provided that included 10 percent from the State and 30 percent from the Federal Govt plus no sales tax so that's at least a 40 percent discount.
Re: (Score:2)
"The cost for 3 cottages was quoted as 106,000 dollars"
Yeah, I can't figure that out. You might, MIGHT, be able to fit 3 kW of panels on a "cottage". At $4/W, the going rate in the US right now, that would cost you 3 cottages x (3 x 1000) x $4 = $36,000.
I can only conclude that this is a typo in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking they're going for battery power supply system in addition to panel installation. That does greatly increase the cost of the system.
Re: (Score:3)
The cost for 3 cottages was quoted as 106,000 dollars but I keep seeing where in California people are installing panels for a tiny fraction of that. I guess that shows just how much of the cost is being subsidized.
It could simply mean that the higher price is a rip-off, not that the lower price is subsidized (or it could mean both).
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it's both.
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:Translated into English (Score:5, Funny)
Where did you POSSIBLY come up with that?!
My guess would be Fox News [youtube.com], they are very knowledgeable when it comes to insolation.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit to ignorance about insolation myself. I just googled it and I'd never known they had a term for that. I learn something new every day.
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Insightful)
People who do it are not making the decision primarily on a financial basis. They're installing it to send a message.
That depends on where they live. In Hawaii, all fuel has to be brought in on tankers, and electricity is $0.42 per kwhr. Solar makes financial sense there.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I did a quick search comparing the two cities. In 2014, Victorville had stronger winds, across the board than Tampa:
Victorville, CA:
Tampa, FL:
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: (Score:2)
Government subsidies don't count in cost effectiveness. Someone is paying the bill. Sure I'd install solar panels if they were damn near free. What idiot wouldn't? But it's not really free because someone has to pay for it.
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Insightful)
> The NREL system has no description of its methodology, data sources, or other independently verifiable information
Holy crap, are you kidding? Every single line of code, bit of data, and the entire methodology is all on their web site! There's an entire page devoted to how the thing works, and where the data comes from. As you are apparently to lazy to even read the site, here, here's the data for you:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/
> You also picked two non-representative cities
Oh my god! Go ahead, click on every one of them if you think I'm wrong.
Seriously, are you trying to back up the statement that California gets FOUR TIMES more sunlight than Florida?!?
> Try finding a source that actually explains where its numbers come from and what they mean.
OMG
http://bit.ly/XU3ibi
Re: (Score:3)
> Bullshit. The app is closed source
I didn't say open source, I said it was available on their web site:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/C/pvwattz_hr.c
> Electric data comes from Ventex
The calculator does not use electric data from Ventex. You must be confused with some other tool on the PVWatts web site.
> Solar irradiance info comes from another private partner.
It comes from here, on their web site:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/
> Are you illiterate
Ast
Re: (Score:2)
No the cost isn't just being subsidized. Florida gets half to one quarter the solar energy at the rooftop that California gets to for the same power usage you have to install twice to four times as many panels.
...
There is something like a map, or a globe.
It has nice funny lines on it, some are called latitude.
Perhaps you like to check on what latitude Florida is, and then follow this line to the *left* and see on what latitude California is
And after that I challenge you to meditate how those funny lines a
Re: (Score:2)
" Florida gets half to one quarter the solar energy at the rooftop that California gets to for the same power usage you have to install twice to four times as many panels."
WTF? who told you that? You need to slap who ever told you that.
That's insane., and you are being lied to. You believe that lie because they are preying on your ignorance. DO some actual research on how it works, and where it's optimal.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Due to copy/paste error, the 176% should read as 17.6%, and 657% should read as 65.7%.
Re: (Score:2)
Most panels I have seen have a 25 year limited power warranty, where they are guaranteed 85-90% efficiency. Past that, panels still keep going. I have several friends who have panels put up in the 1980s, and the panels, although nowhere near as efficient as ones made today, still do the job (usually providing some power for an outbuilding or a weather monitor.)
The problem with solar is that it has a long tail which is unappetizing to today's culture. People want results -now-, growth -now-, and with sola
Re: (Score:3)
> Considering that Solar panels only have a effective life span of 15 years
Somewhere between 50 and 100 years, we don't know because the earliest ones are still working fine:
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/testing-thirty-year-old-photovoltaic-module
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2013/oktober/predicting-the-life-expectancy-of-solar-modules-7.html
And when they are done, they go right into the blue bin. They're about 99.9% re
Re:Translated into English (Score:4, Insightful)
> -- can very reasonably be interpreted as I did above.
Not without an obvious logical fallacy or moving goalposts. To whit:
"Along with tax breaks and other government incentives, the lease agreements have made solar installations increasingly affordable."
Which states, "affordability increases with tax breaks and other government incentives". It does not imply that the systems are not affordable without such. And as the link I provide below notes, PV is perfectly affordable in many situations without any subsidy at all.
More to the point, it says nothing whatsoever about what the "solar industry thinks they deserve". That's entirely made up by you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you guys keep bouncing around the word 'affordable' which is pretty vague considering solar costs. I can get solar here in Oregon fro $4,500 for each kilowatt (kW) , pre incentive. Links below.
So, ho much money would that save, and whats it worth to you to be putting few green house gases in the air? For some people that's affordable.
Frankly, they need to make the incentives up front. So I could go to a company, and they handle all the incentives on their side.
I just replaced my 35 year old roof, so i
Re: (Score:2)
"Affordable" means different things to different people.
As the GP meant it, "affordable" means having a positive ROI with a reasonably short payback period (well under 5 years, currently, and that assumes going totally off-grid; a grid-tie installation can pay for itself in literally half that). As you mean it, someone li
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:Government in the U.S. is extremely corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations have "captured" the government. They have discovered that by "investing" a relatively small amount of money in politicians, they can gain a high return in getting laws and regulations passed with protect their monopolies, enabling them to charge high rent.
This takes place in most (?all) governments but the dollar amount of this return on investment in the US is probably the highest or any country in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Some politicians. not all. There are plenty of states that are citizen friendly regarding solar, and that's because the politician did what there voters, BaL, wanted.
Re:Government in the U.S. is extremely corrupt. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Some politicians. not all. There are plenty of states that are citizen friendly regarding solar, and that's because the politician did what there voters, BaL, wanted.
Are you sure the friendliness is towards the voters and not the solar companies? Just curious?
Note: I'm just playing devil's advocate on perceptions. While normally I'm against government subsides, I personally think solar/alternative energy is a great thing for the governments to subsidize; especially when you consider that the "loser" (if there truly is one) is another government sponsored monopoly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government in the U.S. is extremely corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
If government didn't have the power to regulate this or that, corporations wouldn't be buying it off.
Or as P. J. O'Rourke put it When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is to remove the corruption. If the problem is that political and business motivations are the very same and ignoble, how is surrendering to it going to make it go away?
Re:Government in the U.S. is extremely corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Voters. The elected official are put there by voters, every time.(Not it some rare, and temporary situations)
Educate the voters. Let them know what's going on.
Re: (Score:3)
Educate the voters. Let them know what's going on.
The problem would be separating education from propaganda. Who decides what the education content is? The current incumbents? The media? Unions? Corporations? You?
And then of course we have the subtle slant that can go into the education: ... ... ...
Sources said
The opposition claimed today
The opposition complained today
And of course for time -- just for time really -- we need to cut stories that are less relevant. You say it's censorship, I say good editing (or vice-versa, I don't care). We
Good Old Boy State (Score:4, Insightful)
In no place is crony capitalism so entrenched as in the former states of the Old Confederacy, and Florida is one of the worst. (And, note, I say that as a native of the South.)
Re:Good Old Boy State (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Republican "Free market" capitalism at work.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...as long as their corporate/special interests "freedoms" take priority from the public's interests, everything will be peachy.
Also see: Tesla vs. State auto dealership associations.
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:Then they preach to the world about capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
That definition turns ugly repeatedly so often that the government has to get involved to stop the excesses (company stores, interlocking trusts, monopoly pricing, collusion, vertical market lock).
The bad thing here is that the government was subverted by business and is no longer acting as a check and balance.
A "free market" works for small businesses but not for large multi-national corporations and not even really for simply "large" corporations. It's sort of like how libertarianism can work under a strong government but fails badly when you have a weak government and very powerful people who use that power to abuse weaker people.
There's also a "moral" component which makes capitalism work and be beneficial and that's eroded a lot since 1980.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a "moral" component which makes capitalism work and be beneficial and that's eroded a lot since 1880.
FIFY
Re: (Score:2)
That aside, we do not have a completely free market in this country... if we did, it wouldn't be long before there would be a massive number of people each year killed by products that don't meet basic safety regulations. When people talk about regulations being bad, they seem to miss the point that it's those regulations keeping their water from being polluted with lethal amounts of arse
Re:Then they preach to the world about capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This is a definition of a free market that even Adam Smith would not have recognized. It was not regulation per se that he was opposed to, but mercantilism and state granted monopolies. He looked favorably regulations which protected workmen (citation Wealth of Nations I.10.121 [econlib.org]). He was also in favor of regulating banks where their actions endanger society, even at the expense of curtailing natural liberties (citation: Wealth fo Nations II.2.94 [econlib.org]
).
The free market is free of price or supplier choice regulations. It's not necessarily free of regulation per se, such as regulations of weights and measures, of worker or consumer safety, or even of public morality (e.g. drugs and prostitution).
In any case you can't use the actions of states to indict the federal government for hypocrisy, although there is plenty of other material for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Adam smiths view could only exist in the mind of an Economic Philosopher, and he new that.
Adam Smith's philosophy was NEVER a practical for valid real world concept.
Does anyone blame them? (Score:5, Interesting)
" 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."
Frankly, as someone that worked in the PV industry, I don't blame them for being nervous.
Commercial PV is now cheaper than nuclear and highly competitive with both coal and NG turbines. Rooftop systems are nowhere near as competitive, but as they are on the retail side of the meter, they don't have to be. So that's one thing that's scary.
And then there's the fact that PV, especially west and south-west mounted, provides power on-peak, precisely when the companies charge the most for their power. That's where they make almost all of their profit, so this is doubly super-scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial PV is now cheaper than nuclear and highly competitive with both coal and NG turbines.
maybe you should have read a little lower on the front page before making that claim..... http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
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:Does anyone blame them? (Score:4)
handouts to the affluent (Score:2, Interesting)
Those "attractive rates" mean that the power companies pay retail for the power that you feed back to them, which automatically tells you that they are overpaying, since it doesn't include all of the expenses that power companies have. You know who pays for tho
Try a TRILLION DOLLARS, for starters. (Score:2, Troll)
Aw C'mon, everybody's whining about the subsidies and 'net metering hardware' that needs to be installed and maintained at each point of presence -- aside from the purchase of the solar and wind units themselves... at the core of it are a few folks discovering that power utilities are not as eager as they like them to be.
For solar It's just a politics-entitlement issue because, frankly, the power these solar installations push back onto the grid is too tiny for the 'trouble' they cause. I am SO GLAD that m
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting overall...
I wonder if it's possible at all to just retrofit in a modular way.
for example, take 1 power line that goes down a few city blocks and touches 10 stepdown transformers
Could that entire line be taken down along with the transformers and replaced???
I can just see an entire roll out over 15 years and ton of employment if something like that was possible
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if it's possible at all to just retrofit in a modular way. for example, take 1 power line that goes down a few city blocks and touches 10 stepdown transformers. Could that entire line be taken down along with the transformers and replaced???
IF the area was literally paved with solar and wind, such that its output could not only provide for it completely but with surplus for export, then these resonance effects might be measurable and some adjustment to the original design might improve efficiency.
But the effects that Dodson refers to in the video linked above occur over a much larger region, when large wind turbines create an ebb and flow of hundreds of megawatts at a time, fast ripples in a pond. It's not that the transmission lines cannot ha
Re: (Score:2)
" We need reliable baseload power cheaper than coal first."
If we keep using that, there won't be a down the road.
We need to aggressive stop coal use NOW. I'm sorry if keeping the Earth habitable for human civilization inconvenient and expensive.
\It's going to cost more money ONLY if you don't take health related issues from coal, global warming impact, and other ancillary cost into account.
You sentiment was fin 25 years ago. If the pubs didn't fight to stop it 25 years ago, we would be off coal today.
OH no
Re: (Score:2)
With a bit of find and replace
s/Solar{ PV|}/Natural Gas/g
Now your comment makes sense... even at night!
Natural gas is the new darling of base load generation. The only problem being that IF the present burdens of coal is shifted onto it and present coal infrastructure is decommissioned and abandoned, we'll have nothing to fall back on WHEN natural gas peaks and declines.
When considering the relative costs of things I try to factor in whether they will ultimately 'work' at all. Solar PV for base load energy
Re:Base Load Power (Score:3)
Solar PV for base load energy will not work
Solar Thermal, coupled with PV, Wind, Hydro, and energy storage will work. There is no requirement that only one kind of energy source be used to satisfy the demand curve. A current example is the Ivanpah solar thermal plant, just west of Las Vegas. They didn't bother putting in any storage because Boulder Dam, just east of Las Vegas, is on the same main power line. So whatever power Ivanpah puts out, just means more water behind the dam can be saved for other times.
Ivanpah also has natural gas backup.
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.
Lifetime solar power in FL (Score:2)
Panels don't last as long in Florida when a storm comes and rips them off your roof every 20 years. Also our electricity is pretty cheap here.
Re: (Score:3)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green... [ieee.org]
"15 November 2012—Glass panels on rooftops and hurricane force winds don’t sound like the greatest of combinations, but solar power companies say their customers’ rooftop installations stood up very well to Hurricane Sandy’s onslaught."
Suniva panels are rated for 200 MPH winds ( http://www.suniva.com/document... [suniva.com] ). The rest of the house would likely blow away first.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately hurricane winds also contain debris.
Any electrical engineers out there? (Score:3)
They also suggest that net metering requires some extra infrastructure on the part of the utility, which I know to be completely false.
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.
Please give examples of the obstacles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there.
What that appears to mean is that without the subsidies and questionable business practices, no one in their right mind would buy solar panels for their home. That may not be the case, but the fact that the article fails to spell it out, suggests that it is.
It doesn't matter. Solar will win in sunny areas (Score:2)
Utilities can only delay solar a little. PV solar, without subsidies, is just now becoming cheaper than fuel-powered electricity in sunny locations. Bloomberg reports the first non-subsidized solar plant to be built in Spain. [bloomberg.com]
In the next decade, we'll see the end of subsidies and continued growth in PV solar. Anywhere the biggest daytime power load is from air conditioning, solar will win out.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst thing in America is that the "fucked" are the loudest proponents of the "fuck the rest" mentality. It's a triumph of social engineering.
Re:Solar (Score:5, Insightful)
> 2) The electricity companies are not under any obligation that I know of to take your electricity.
They are in locations where the utility regulators require "net metering". In a fair situation, the homeowner still pays a line charge, to cover line maintenance and provisions for current flowing backwards through transformers, and not overloading the lines in times of high output. Then they pay and earn fair per kWh rates (which may be different and vary by time of day) for power used and generated.
> 4) The cost of taking your crappy, varying pittance of power
Is nothing like the way you describe it. Unless surplus solar is a majority of the power on a distribution line (the line that goes from the substation to houses), it will simply go from your house to some other house on the line. The utility then pushes the difference through their substation to meet the remainder of the demand. They already have to handle varying demand on the distribution line, since demand varies all the time in normal use. Only if solar were more than what is needed to power the solar houses *and* everyone else on the distribution line, would the utility need to make provisions at the substation for running power to other substations.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can not make a profit by simply buying solar panels of the shelf, without subsidies, and feeding the excess power into the grid, then there is something seriously wrong in your country. Perhaps missing regulations about feeding in? No idea. Perhaps absurd low energy prices? No idea either.
In Germany without feed in tariffs, subsidizes etc. pay back is roughly 7 years.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Wrong.
4. Cleansing,as you say, is done at the home, by the home owner.
You do know this isn't about money and about reducing green houses gases, right?.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it and hos point remains valid. Weather or ont you like him is irrelevant and being used to prop a biased opinion.
Stop it.