Re: Cost of the grid compared to solar

In article , snipped-for-privacy@OVEcfl.THISrr.com mentioned...

for

$20,000.

official

best,

will

typical

place.

to

lots

will

I think you're ignoring the rebate programs that states have made along with the power companies to make these solar arrays much more attractive. Your loan figures may be far off if the state programs allow loans with much more attractive rates.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted.  *All* email sent to it 
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the 
Subject: line with other stuff.  alondra101  hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers.  Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com  You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

You can do a moderate grid-intertie system for a few grand, probaly

200-300 watts of panels (at under $500/50W), even less maybe.

Looking at a figures in Home Power Magazine, probably $2,500 for a

300W Grid intertie system.

Once

Forgot the links.

( note that this was

2000, three years ago ) Some new finds have kept the collapse off but current reserves are almost gone and there is a growing need to save them for national emergencies such as war which might cut off imports. showing how fast the U.S. is depleting a small resources to avoid importing OPEC oil. showing how Canada with no more than 3.5 years production left ) has been overproducing to help out while depleting it's own resource base at a totally unsustainable rate, even outproducing Saudi Arabia. Now refer back to the reserves to production rations and look where Saudi Arabia stands? They can produce their current output for decades while Canada is due to be sucked dry and discarded by 2007.

Well, actually, you may want to research this a little more, as you may be leaving money on the table: try:

and select Florida on the map. Also, the FSEC (Florida Solar Energy Center) is located at the University of Central Florida in your area:

Comparing California & Florida w.r.t. home photovoltaic (PV) systems:

• you get more intense sun (than we do here in N. California)

- FL is not as aggressive as CA on rebates ? in any case, there is not only state-to-state variation, but variation among power companies and local governments

Nevertheless, your general overview of the economics simply does *not* describe the situation correctly in CA and some other places; maybe it is true in FL, but I think you might want to investigate a little more, as I think at least a few of your assumptions are off.

Here's how it works here [N. California, PG&E territory].

1) We normally have time-of-day pricing, in which peak-hours (Summer 12-6P) cost $.31/Kwh, whereas off-peak costs $.08/Kwh.

2) When you go to solar PV, you use *net-metering* [which also exists in FL], i.e., some of the time you run the meter backwards.

3) It turns out that 1) and 2) work together, such that during the peak hours, which are among the best sunlight hours, you not only avoid paying the higher prices, but when you're running the meter back, you get credited with the *higher* rate, i.e., ~ 4:1. In essence, you are storing electricity in the grid, then drawing it back 4:1. Here (and in some other states), the period for this is a *year*. That is, install PV, and then, each year, you pay for your net usage over the year, including the multiplier factors as above. They never pay you, so it makes no sense to overbuild, unless you have a flakey grid in your area, and you install a big battery system, and you're looking to minimize power interruptions, not just save money.

4) For example, *here*, a $17-20K system (2.5Kw system... which does include relatively generous CA rebate) would approximately cancel a $200/month bill for approximately 1100 Kwh, which is ~37 Kwh/day, or about 1.5Kw/hour on average. Suppose you get 8 hours of effective sun/day in the summer, including the 6 peak hours. Suppose for simplicity, you actually use a constant 1.5Kw/hour.

Figuring Kwh at base rate: For 2 sun hours: 2 * (2.5-1.5 used) = 2 Kwh credit (for base rate Kwh) For 6 peak summer hours: 6 * (2.5-1.5 used) * 4 = 24 Kwh credit

Total credit = 26 Kwh, applied to remaining 16 hours * 1.5 Kw = 24 Kwh, i.e., cancelled during summer. and accumulates 2*120 = 240 Kwh for 120 days of summer [June-Sept]. ====== During Winter, assuming no peak hours, not so good:

8 hours: 8 * 1 = 8 Kwh credit, applied to rest of day's 16, leaving 8/day.

8 Kwh/day, 240 days => 1920 Kwh - 240 Kwh (leftover from Summer) =>

1700 Kwh. Hence (here) instead of paying $200/month, one would pay about $350 at end of each year, or saved roughly $2000.

Your mileage may vary, but this looks like it's in the ballpark to cancel the electricity bill.

NOTE: you get big leverage from the 4:1 ratio, and fact that best sunlight usually covers the most expensive period. NOTE: important that this accumulates over a year, not just a month at a time. NOTE: it "helps" to have expensive electricity. sigh.

5) Any good solar PV contractor would have appropriate data for the local area, and spreadsheet calculators for figuring these for the individual case.

6) *Here*, a typical mortgage loan, using your calculations, can actually be cash-flow positive from day one, even ignoring the ability to defer paymetns until year-end.

7) Let's try another way, if a $20K investment saves $2000 (out of $ 2400 bill)/year, then it takes 10 years for payback, and after that, you're ahead $2K/year. Whether it makes more sense to invest the money somewhere else or do a mortgage loan depends on what return you think you can get on your money elsewhere.

8) This is all new enough that I can't be certain of the effect on resale prices, but there is apparently starting to be some evidence that solar PV (at least here) is one of the very best additions to a house in terms of returning *more* than the cost in improved resale value. I.e., suppose you have a choice of two otherwise identical houses, and see both electricity bills for last year, and one of them is $2400, and one of them is $400. That's certainly worth something in the pricec, although exactly how much remains to be seen.

9) Of course, it is always good to reduce unnecessary usage first. Google: watts up gets you to web page of useful meters that you can use to check instantaneous usage, or leave plugged in to accumulate usage over longer periods. "Vampire" devices can surprise you, i.e., especially consumer products that look "off" but aren't really. Particularly if you've got a bunch of computers, printers, routers, etc, or TV/VCR/DVD, it's handy to put each group on a switched power strip so you can *really* turn them off, easily. I found that my computers/printers/router consumed 3-5% of a month's power, when *unused*.

When buying new appliance, energy-efficient ones are usually a little more expensive, but can return the price.

Of course, buying houses with sensible insolation is good idea, sometimes not so easy to retrofit.

9) Sometimes, it's practical moving electricity usage off-peak [we do that with pool filter, and use solar hot water to lessen gas usage]. In some houses, it pays to run air-conditioners off-peak. [We have a Frank Lloyd Wright-style house with thick concrete block walls, heavy overhanging roof, and dry air that's always cool at night, so air-conditioning is unneeded, as the building's heat cycle counterbalances the outside temperatures. If we used an air conditioner, it would make sense to run it off-peak. This probably makes less sense in houses with thin wood walls and minimal insulation.]

You might ask: do we a hve solar PV, and if not, why not? We have *not* yet gotten a PV electric system yet, but I've been researching it heavily, and I'm quite convinced that it's economic, at least here. At this point, it's only gated by:

a) Getting a PV contractor in - many of the local ones have 6-month waiting lists, due to recent upsurge in installations. b) We have multiple sections of flat tar-and-gravel roof, which of course need to be redone ~10 years or so. We could just add a PV array near the solar hot water collector that's already there, or else we could redo the tar-and-gravel a little early before putting the PV in, or there are some potentially much longer lasting membrane materials that could be used [a neighbor just did this, so I'm checking that], and all that's got to get sorted out first. This is simpler on most slanted roofs.

Finally, they are starting to build regular housing developments in N. California with solar PV and other energy-efficient features, so there is progress.

for

$20,000.

official

best,

will

typical

place.

to

lots

will

Well, John- my point is simple. If you assume that I get a -zero- net bill at the end of each month by installing this system, the payment for the loan totals the same or MORE than what I spend on power now. So once again, why would I bother?

Cheers!

Chip Shults My robotics, space and CGI web page -

This is for your HOME? How does it use that much electricity? Electric resistance heat and hot water?

I thought I was a spendthrift on energy (although our major heating supplies are gas, which is still much cheaper than electric resistance.) Without air conditioning, our monthly bills run about $75, which works out to about 1000 KWH. I'm sure my peak demand, especially in the summer, runs at least as high as yours. In fact, it is hard to understand how your peak can be as low as 13.2 KW, as the average over the full month is 8.67 KVA.

Jon

Ian, better recheck your figures and the credibility of your sources.

Fossil fuel alarmists have been pandering this sort of "The Sky Is Falling" concerns for the past 50 years or so at least, and happily the end is no where in sight to scientists others with with expertise in the subject.

During the past 5 years alone, more new oil reserves were discovered than the known deposits that were previously believed to exist in total throughout the world. Granted that some of these exist undersea or scattered around that vast, heavily debated wasteland called the Arctic, but so what! (Let the polar bears and seals learn to co-exist with oil pipelines, just as humans have adapted over the years!)

Rest assured that sufficient oil and coal deposits exist to fuel the demand until ultimately nuclear energy takes over the load.

Read Darwin and you'll grasp the big picture.

Harry C.

realise

U.S.

100%

flood

You disagree with the U.S. DOE??? I also verified the numbers with Canadian energy statistics.

The end is clearly in sight. The rate of discovery peaked in the 1960's and we are now approaching the hubbard peak in oil production. The oil is clearly running out within the reserves of Canada/U.S. and this will force huge imports as they run out. Only massive local overproductiion has kept import levels down and this is rapidly coming to a close. One reason for the suddent interest in invasion of Iraq,Iran/ and SA which would give the U.S. control of the Persian Gulf with the major resources. The U.S. is likely to keep prices high at the world price and provide 'subsidies' from the profits to lower the effective price for it's own industries.

Pure bullshit. Does ANYONE believe this???

Aha. I see you are somewhat confused by the misinformation campaign. There have been *no* oil discoveries in the ANWR. The 'potential reserves' are exclusively a figment of imagination from some 'geological studies' paid for by the oil companies. The same sort of studies provided other 'potential fields' that turned up dry. Even if the ANWR did turn out to have significant oil it would hardly dent the demand and would have to be produced over a long period.

Even nuclear is limited and unlikely to serve the needs for transportation fuels. Conversion of other energy sources to liquids tends to be expensive or we would be doing it now. You are talking about a future where a barrel of oil ( equivalent ) is $100 and gasoline is $10 a gallon.

Yes. I understand that dinosaurs like you will die out. I consider it 'evolution in action'. Just don't pull the rest of us h*mo-sapiens down with you. Unlike dinosaurs, we can see the consequences of our actions and avoid them.

and

that

energy

realise

Once

100%

Small things amuse small minds.

Nope. Just a rational and intelligent observer. You reversion to 'name calling' instead of research indicates that you are *not* a rational and intelligent observer.

U.S. Department of Energy.

flood

You have to engage a few brain cells. This will undoubtably be difficult for you, but try.

( note that this was

2000, three years ago ) Some new finds have kept the collapse off but current reserves are almost gone and there is a growing need to save them for national emergencies such as war which might cut off imports. showing how fast the U.S. is depleting a small resources to avoid importing OPEC oil. showing how Canada with no more than 3.5 years production left ) has been overproducing to help out while depleting it's own resource base at a totally unsustainable rate, even outproducing Saudi Arabia. Now refer back to the reserves to production rations and look where Saudi Arabia stands? They can produce their current output for decades while Canada is due to be sucked dry and discarded by 2007. Alberta Production is about 75% of 341.7 thousand cubic meters per day or about 256,275 cubic meters per day. Alberta Proven Reserves is about 326,900,000 cubic meters. That means that at current production rates, the oil would last about 1272 days or about three and a half years.. There are negligeable new finds in the old Leduc fields. This correlates well with the 5 year reserves/production figures from the DOE in 2000.

You can verify the facts by the oil industries own figures at

It boils down to the U.S/Canada having both huge and unsustainable production from relatively small reserves and a looming crisis when they run out. This isn't rocket science.

Hmm... 25k$ is less that what a lot of vehicles cost these days.

No, the sensible thing to do is when you refinance your mortgage to take out

25k$ in equity. That means you are now paying what, 5%. Big difference and fairly easy to get, not hey it might happen. The loan is then part of the mortgage at 15 or 30 years.

$107 at 5% over 30 years.

True, but inflation decreases that somewhat. The real question is what it does to the value of the house.

Now make some assumptions about inflation, the value of the house, tax breaks for having an energy efficient house etc. Also add some costs for improving the house insulation, etc.

Nonsense, no one with an ounce of sense is going to put this on her\ Visa.

Duh! if you have improved your insulation, you may not have to buy extra power for the A/C.

Talk to me in a few months about your bill when the soaring price of natural gas pushes the electric bill up, or, maybe FL will get caught in an Enron squeeze.

Depends on where, and a bunch of other stuff.

josh halpern

You won't catch ME paying that much for a vehicle. I choose practical over showy crap.

system

Remember, the life of the system is rated at 20 years. You end up paying for it 30 years? What a crock. It would only be sensible to do if you get a 15 or 20 year mortgage. But now you are talking about refinancing your home. Resetting the clock, so to speak. If you are already at a good interest rate, this is not an attractive idea. If you have already paid the first five to seven years (which is mostly interest, principal has barely decreased) then you may not HAVE $25k in equity in many situations. You have just made some guy in a bank richer and now you have to start paying for your house all over again. By and large, this still is just not a realistic option for most people.

$20,000.

Okay, inflation is a factor over this period of time, sure. Value of your home is questionable over 20 years. Too many variables. I lived in a pretty nice neighborhood where the neighbors were slowly moving out as the trashy ones moved in. Guess what happened to the value of my home? This happened not once, but twice. I had to eat it in both cases. My present neighborhood shows staying power, but we just had a neighbor here who has a solar pool heater, and his panels were trashed by vandals. Talk about horror stories. Even with the insurance, it did not cover the cost of the replacement work, and the company hired started working, then walked after receiving part of their draw. He was stuck with a non-functioning system for something like a year, and he had to cough up the cash out of pocket. Once again, why take this risk? If some dumbass tried to trash a power plant, he will probably get shot. If he trashes your house, nobody seems to give a damn. Police reports, insurance inspectors, lots of red tape and paperwork. In the end, you have to shell out cash to pay for things.

power

Are you kidding? They typically charge 15 to 20 percent. You might negotiate 10% through a bank, but not through a credit card company.

best,

will

There are physical limits to how much your insulation can be improved. Mine is pretty good, and to get any better there would be ventilation and air exchange problems, not to mention nowhere to move stuff in the attic. It seems to me that a much better solution to the insulation problem would be a three inch air gap between the roof that you see and the actual roof, with a nice thick layer of spray foam or some equivalent in there. You can't make your house the equivalent of a Dewar flask, because people have to breathe. This would then leave your attic with a much lower heat load, which would surely help. And remember radon? Think about phosphate mining and Florida... The major problem with most radon accumulations here is "too much insulation and not enough air exchange". Well, how then do you go about improving your insulation in areas like this without creating a potentially hazardous buildup of radon? You could use heat exchangers, but that is another expense on top of everything else. And, one more thing to maintain every couple of weeks.

typical

place.

Once again, unpredictable factors.

to

lots

will

And that is exactly right. Too many variables, too many risks, etc. If the costs were closer to the $5k to $10K range for this system, then things would be different. And if you could get a loan with a rate like your mortgage rate without having to refinance your home to do it, that would also be a great incentive.

Cheers!

Chip Shults My robotics, space and CGI web page -

$500 for power!!! I live in LA and I never spend over $35.00 a month on power, even in the summer. And I've never spend over $26.00 for gas in winter (yes we have a cooler season here).

Mind you I have a car with no A/C but I've been comfortable driving it to Palm Springs in August (116°) and to Las Vegas (105°). However, I have installed an extra fan.

at home, it almost hit 100° degrees. I am sitting here without a shirt on and I have a fan blowing on me. I have 3 other fans going, one for the cat.

If I get too hot, I sprinkle some water on my clothes and the evaporation can actually make me cold. Even if the water was hot from being in the sun.

But $500.00. Is this guy running the A/C 24-7, leaving the shades all open and running a bunch of stuff indoors making the house hotter? Our power rates here are higher than in AZ and to spend $500 on power in a month for a home is pretty extravagant. I bet if this person spent $500.00 on conservation measures, they could cut their power bill for the summer in less than half.

-- Dan

From Costa Mesa in sunny California

Check out my electronic schematics site at:

If you are into cars check out

More to the point it is but a trickle compared to U.S. demand. You would need to invest $100B to get production up to replacing the current Canadian imports and that would take decades to built the heavy machinery and train the jobforce. It is a large resource but it is not going to supply the necessary volume of oil.

More liike a Saudi Arabia plus, but it costs $13 a barrel for the stuff that is at the *shallow* end of a deepening bed. Accessing the more deeply buried sands to the west will cost more like $17/barrel and because it is heavy oil and relatively high sulfur it sells for a lot less than 'light sweet crude' from Iraq.

Actually nobody has ever extracted oil from the shales on an economical basis that I know of.

Not quite yet. It only costs about $1 a barrel to 'produce' Iraqs oil so cheap oil can be sustained for about 40 to 60 years ( U.S. demand only ) or about 15 years ( current world demand ). After that, ...

Yah. We let OPEC sell us oil at $35 a barrel. This may have been sustainable with 45% of the oil produced within the U.S, but it is not sustainable once that domestic production falls off, as it will within a few years.

However, the vast investment money has to compete with the massive increase in U.S. national debt which needs to be financed so borrowing billions for development is getting hard. There have been a number of 'developments' announced that subsequently fell through.

Sorry but it isn't a case of not looking for more. They passed the exploration peak back in the '60s and you are not discovering any major reserves in the U.S. any more. This sort of "What? Me Worry?" is the province of Alfred E. Neuman, not rational people.

My. You have a rich fantasy life. I envy you.

Actually it is people like you that expect people to be blindsided by a future they do not bother to examine.

Many of your comments were fairly generic, i.e., not limited to your exact situation. I described a situation not uncommon out here, in which, in fact, solar PV installations can mention some important factors that exist in some places, i.e., like time-based pricing.

I several times pointed out that individual mileage may vary, and that there are numerous variables, and made no claim that it was guaranteed in *your* case.

You obviously have zero interest in this for yourself [which is fine, in Orlando the economics may be less favorable], but much of your post used the generic "you", and I believe that you were over-generalizing beyond your own experience. Certainly, what you posted doesn't apply very well in substantial parts of CA. I tried hard not to over-generalize, as there are indeed many variables, including even things like where neighbors' trees are.

Ian, you evidently don't realize how many producuctive wells in the US were capped during the 1950s and 60s in the face of cut-rate competition from the Arab nations. On top of this there is the huge domestic "Naval Reserve" that continues to be protected and reserved in spite of the fact that the navy today is largely propelled by nuclear energy.

Evidently you're too young to remember when the nation's cars ran quite nicely using $0.29 cents per gallon Texas and Oklahoma oil, enormous reserves of which still exist due to the capping of the wells.

Add to the the fact that the very large energy suppliers are increasingly using nuclear energy as a source, and likely to increase in the near future, and you'll find that domestic oil and gas supplies (including the huge reserves that remain yet untapped in Alaska and offshore) are more than adequate to provide transportation fuels for at least the next 100 years.

Your posts suggent that you have a specific agenda, sadly one that does not reflect reality.

Harry C.

Canadian

train

A rough idea of who is using how much.

Perhaps you are unaware that such wells would be included in the 'known reserves' and the figures for production/consumption include them. Perhaps you are unaware that the U.S. has been boosting production to try to minimize the OPEC oil imports to keep prices low? That Canada has boosted it's production for exactly that reason to unsustainable levels in excess of Saudi Arabia? So far you have not shown any huge deposits of idle oil. The production rate of the U.S. is such that any such wells were uncapped decades ago.

Nope. Nuclear carriers and nuclear subs but a lot of the army, all of the airforce and a major part of the navy still rely on fossil fuels. Again you fail to support your claims and seem to be unaware of the actual data. The A1M2 Abrams main battle tank, for example, gets a half mile per gallon.. And you don't want to know what a supersonic jet goes through. It's like pouring it down a sink.

False. Capped wells would still be on the 'known reserves' list. The reserves/production ratio is still valid and shows only three to five years of production at current rates. This is NOT your 29c per gallon oil era.

No new nuclear facilities have been built in the U.S. in three or four decades.

Fantasizing about huge reserves does not produce a drop. No oil has been 'discovered' in the ANWR despite the major hype about theoretical exercises. And it could do little more than slow down the decline at the rate it can be produced and shipped if a large reserve were to be discovered.

Fantasy, not facts.

Sadly, you manage to avoid all facts and go 'by your feelings'. This suggest that you are more of a victim of propaganda rather than a student of the issue.

Known reserves are known reserves. The capping of a well would not confuse the issue.

Ha ha. Actually we are supporting America by dispelling some of the illusions promoted by the new Fascists.

You are obviously more into ego games than facts.

I'm sure you are. Now dust yourself off and stop rolling in the dungheap.

unsustainable

that

Leduc

run

It is simple. You have X amount of oil. You are using 0.3X oil per years. How long will the oil last? Answer X/.3 assuming no cut in production rate.

Very simple math. Public school even. Now the actual producting will not last three years and then stop. The actual decline will be a tapering off of production that increases in speed. Currently production decline is about 4% but the facts show that this is likely to become 10% or more shortly.

Ah. I wondered when I would see the "appeal to ignorance' logical fallacy. There are many out there that are aware of the looming crisis which is specific to the U.S. because of it's massive needs, but they are talking to a public that is a lot liike you. Massively ignorant and determined to remain that way, justifying not listening by the fact that they have heard nothing. .. hearing nothing because they are not listening..

So you are going to take the "What? Me Worry?" approach. The problem with reality is that it is hard on such dimwits as Alfred E. Neuman and his ilk.

I keep telling Albertans that this is the U.S. attitude but they fail to understand that they will be discarded like an empty pop can when King Ralph runs out of cheap oil to send south. Some of them think they are doing the U.S. a favor and will be rewarded. Like P.T.Barnum said... there is a sucker born every minute.