The power company wouldn't like it. They'd sell you less power, and your po wer consumption would become more erratic.
Because they were selling you less power, they'd have to recover the fixed costs of your bit of the distribution network from a smaller chunk of power , and because your consumption was more erratic, they'd need more "dispatch able" power - from fast-starting generators, like hydro-electric power stat ions and gas-turbine driven generators. "Base-load" generation is easier an d tends to be cheaper - hydroelectric power can be very cheap, but there's rarely enough water available close to a long drop to keep everybody happy all the time.
That's the argument. But, if folks went OFF-GRID, there would similarly be an argument that they should be *taxed* (as they are no longer paying for a commodity based on usage) to support this infrastructure.
["Change threatens existing power balances in relationships"]
That tends to be contrary to the way things are done, here (though not always in very *direct* ways).
E.g., gas tax allegedly pays for the upkeep of the roads -- if you don't use gasoline (for your vehicle), then why pay for road upkeep? Likewise, excise taxes on tires. There are taxes on phone bills to subsidize phone service to rural areas (where phone service might historically have been more expensive to provide). If you don't have a phone, why should you pay those fees?
These "reasons" are really rationalizations. They make some sense but they aren't offered *because* they make sense but, rather, to protect existing interests.
A neighbor described car ownership in Japan. Allegedly, it is artificially expensive to own a car AND NOT KEEP REPLACING IT there. Fines/fees for silly "wear issues" (broken tail light?) things whose *actual* purpose is to promote consumption.
[Imagine your vehicle tax INCREASING with each year of ownership... huh?]
Selling power back to the local electric utility stores the power on grid, where others can use your the excess power that your solar array is producing during the day, when you're allegedly not at home. The payback is lousy, but it's better than nothing.
However, if you want to store power, think about erecting a water tank. A *MINIMAL* system would be about 5 meters elevation and 3000 gallons (11 cubic meters) of water. 2" pipe is good for about 55 gal/min (0.2 cubic-meters/min. Assuming 75% overall efficiency (pumping efficiency * generator efficiency) you can produce about
7.3kw, until you run out of water: At 55 gallons/min, that will be: 3000 gal / 55 gallons/min = 55 mins The water is not wasted as it goes into a 2nd tank. When there's surplus power available, it is used to pump the water back up to the supply tank. If you need less than 7.3 kW, regulate the pressure and reduce the flow rate. The problem is that it doesn't really save much money.
7.3 kW for one hr at $0.15kW-hr is only worth about $1 in utility power cost, but better than the approximately $0.40 that the utility will pay. Extra points for using the tank for fire protection or a fire sprinkler system.
If you don't have room for water, just lift a very big heavy weight up the tower instead, and use the potential energy to store your surplus power. If that's too crude, dig a bunker, and install a flywheel storage system. Or maybe a compressed air system. Whatever works.
Hmmm... All this will go nicely with my radioisotope home water heater.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Very true. Here's an example: That's a 30kW system. PG&E claimed that 30kW would somehow "overload" their equipment (which is designed to deliver many megawatts at the local level) and initially refused to allow a connection. Some details of the circus (from 2001): In general, the utilities don't like competition, even if they are a beneficiary.
Flywheel, potential energy storage (lift water or weight), compressed air, super caps, liquid sodium, etc.
"Utility Scale Energy Storage Systems"
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
That;s the problem with all energy solutions! Energy is relatively cheap, here. Whether it's petroleum products, electricity, etc. The Market
*appears* to ensure things don't get too expensive too quickly -- for fear of driving people to alternatives (e.g., $4 gas had folks looking for INVESTMENTS -- cars -- that would cut their long term demands for fuel).
Apparently, russians used small devices like that.
We looked into the "demand" water heaters (fancy versions of designs that the Japanese used ages ago). But, again, high installation costs. And, you *know* the first time the "controller" craps out, the *PLUMBER* who comes to service it will do nothing more than swap it out for a replacement. At $100+ for the call plus replacement (assume you are given some sort of credit for the old unit which can be refurbished), you've just added a few more months to your payback period.
And the *yellow*! (but, the yellow ones can go either way...)
I haven't read the statute but I think being connected to the grid (even if you don't cogenerate) subjects you to taxes to compensate for having this "fall back" alternative.
So, they are effectively telling you "all or nothing" -- and hoping that raises the bar high enough that you opt for "none at all".
The power company doesn't want to lose a customer. ANY customers. It sets a bad precedent every time someone is highlighted by the media for something contrary to their business model.
"Water is in short supply. Conserve water! Otherwise we'll have to increase rates to reflect the shortage of supply!"
"OK, we will!"
"Hmmm... folks aren't using ENOUGH water! We have to raise our rates!!"
[ I won't comment on the above numbers, though I do not endorse them. ]
Conventionally, one assumes that the alternative would have been to invest the money in bonds and assume a certain rate of return. Therefore, when people claim a payback / breakeven period for a solar installation, they expect it to not only pay back the capital cost, but also to create profits (or avoided utility expenses) that would (at the payback point) equal the average profits made from putting that amount of capital into some very low risk financial investment. At present that makes little difference to the analysis as bonds pay hardly any interest, but over previous decades it made quite a difference to the payback analysis. In spite of this, in areas with high retail electricity prices and high insolation, PV can pay back within a few years. In areas with very little sun and cheap electricity prices, of course it doesn't.
The PV installation may still be worthwhile even if the payback period is quite long, because after that you are getting free electricity until it breaks and needs servicing, which might be a lot of free electricity if you use good quality panels. That might be valuable if you will be around to take advantage of that free part of the energy, or if you can find a buyer for your house who places value on that.
Some people also assume that the price of electricity will go up in future. I won't get into that here.
Thank you. If there were ever any agreement, much less a consensus, in sci.electronics.design, the repercussions surely precipitate the demise of civilization as we know it. I suppose a nolo contendere neutral stance is sufficient to avert this impending doom.
Which bonds? CD's, treasury notes, and bank deposits are running about 1.5% AER. Longer term notes are perhaps twice that. If I go for private placement notes, I might get what the banks are charging for a 30 year mortgage, or about 3.5% APR. I'll pretend that I'm lucky and can get 2% APR interest on a 30 year note and take monthly payments to offset my electric bill. $33,000 over 30 years at 2% is about $120/month income, or $1,440/year income. Income taxes will take about 20%, resulting in $1,152 net income.
Therefore, the annual cost of electricity will be: 10,800 kW-hr/yr * $0.15 = $1,620/yr The $1,152/yr in investment income will pay 71% of the electric bill, which is quite nice at the beginning. However, as the cost of electricity and inflation increase over the 30 year term, the investment income will remain constant. Assuming a very conservative
5% rate of inflation, the cost of electricity will go from $1,620 to about $3,500/yr(?) while your $1,152/yr in investment income will remain constant or only 33% of your expected electric bill. In my never humble opinion, the 5% inflation rate on the cost of energy is very conservative over a 30 year period.
The difference between producing your own power and buying from a utility is that the value of the power you produce keeps up with inflation, while your fixed interest income does not.
Yep. I'm getting about 1.5% on my investments today, while in the past, I was getting up to 12%. Just bring back sub-prime loans, programmed trading, junk bonds, creative derivative trading, and dot.com companies without products, and we can return to those glorious days.
I know the feeling. I live in a dense forest facing east. Solar can be made to work, but only in the summer. However, the OP lives in Arizona, which is fairly close to the ideal location for solar power. I'm addressing his situation, not mine.
I'm not so sure. The recent dramatic price drop in Chinese panels, that has made solar power a reasonable proposition, has also made it a miserable long term investment. I might expect the cost of panels to continue dropping in price. At best, I might build an expandable array, starting with a few panels and adding more when the price drops. That's one of the benefits of micro-inverters. The panels do NOT need to all be identical or even similar. I know of one such array of mixed panels that is truly ugly, but works just fine.
The panels certainly add value to a home appraisal, but not if they're leased:
The cost of electricity has dropped if measured in inflation adjusted dollars. The reason it seems to be getting more expensive is not that electricity now costs more to produce, but that the dollar is shrinking:
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
That misses the point completely. No sane person would buy a 100k PV system sized to run an all electric house when they can spend 5k and have gas heating and a well insulated fridge.
You're assuming you can *get* gas at your home. I can think of lots of places that have electricity but no gas. I can't think of any that have gas but no electricity!
[you're also assuming fossil fuel costs remain cheap]
My in-laws burn *coal* to heat their home. (they live on the outskirts of town with widely spaced homes/ranches) They have electric appliances. I can't recall where their water heater is located but don't recall it tied to the furnace.
My parents burn oil to heat theirs. (they were the first home in the subdivision so no gas infrastructure to tap into) They have electric appliances. Water is heated (inefficiently) via a heat exchanger in the furnace's water jacket.
My sister burns propane to heat hers. Electric appliances. I *think* she may have propane fired hot water (else electric).
*We* have a gas feed (for heat/water) but two of our neighbors don't have
*any* gas hookup ("all electric house"). Yet they're close enough that I can throw a rock and hit either of their homes!
The cost for them to replace their electric heat (stove, water, etc.) with gas obviously doesn't make sense to them financially:
- having the street dug up to expose the 4" gas main at the closest place to their home
- having it extended to their home (no idea if they can just run a regular "stub" to their house if the main doesn't pass close enough)
- ditto for the yard (actually, I think they can use a horizontal drill to save some of the digging effort -- clever device -- but, they'd have to pay for that crew and the equipment "for a day")
- plumber to install the gas lines *in* the (existing) house after someone opens the walls and ceiling to make space for the pipe
- carpenter/drywall crew to fix up the demo work needed to expose a channel for the pipe
- gas company to install meter (service)
- inspection fee
- new furnace (their's is currently located on the roof)
- new oven (optional) and/or water heater
- disposal of existing appliances And, with electric *heating*, you can bet they have an incentive to move to a "cheaper fuel"!
For my in-laws, it would require laying something on the order of a mile or more of gas line just to get gas into their neighborhood. (out in the sticks... multi-acre plots)
No idea if/where the gas lines are in my hometown but the *best* that would be is comparable to my neighbors, here.
For *us* to replace our electric stove and clothes dryer with gas appliances, the costs would be comparable to the neighbors -- the entire house would have to be replumbed in order to assure adequate delivery to the replacement appliances (though no costs to get gas
Thanks for the analysis. Got any statistics for: How long the typical person lives in the same house? How much of your investment can you get back when you move and sell your house?
On 12/7/2014 5:40 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: snip
Please publish your interpretation of exactly what that means. It's year 20 and my system is at 75%, according to MY measurements. Ignore, for the moment, that nobody is gonna take MY measurements as valid. Ownership of the house has changed twice since installation. What would be my out of pocket expense to get the system back above 80%?
Back in the day, I had a checking account that paid 7% interest FOR LIFE! One Thursday, I got a letter informing me that my bank was closing. The following Monday, a new bank with the same employees opened at the same location. For my convenience, my account would be transferred to the new bank. My checks would still work. Only difference, that they failed to mention in the press release, was that the checking account no longer paid any interest.
Warranties are only as good as your ability to find someone to honor it.
If the panels are not lasting 25 years, the company will no longer exist. They'll be long gone before anybody else notices the problem.
Exaggerating long-term performance for something that's impossible for most people to measure gives you competitive advantage at zero cost.
Municipal bonds, rolled over. Other excellent investments: Eli Lilly, P&G, Coke, Hershey, WalMart, Altria, etc; "boring" & steady dividend producers that are stable over wide market conditions and (mostly) world wide dominators; history of increasing dividends. Like a financial boat so inflation changes the numbers but not the income rate which is what counts. Munis part of mix to decrease taxes.
I noted "The trick is to get everything off the electrical system that is possible and put it on gas or propane," he said. "Lights, computers, televisions, kitchen appliances -- you can run all that on less than $10 a month. You can run everything you're running in your house now if you have the major stuff on gas." My questions are, where are these electric / AC generators that run on propane, how much do they cost, and what power ratings are available?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.