Jump to content

Solar Energy costs


akirby

Recommended Posts

 

What is preventing homeowners from using solar energy?

Nothing is preventing people from using solar but many electricity providers are either charging people if they go solar and/or preventing them from disconnecting from the grid completely. Some cities actually have laws preventing residents from not connecting to the grid. My point was more to the fact that at the moment local utilities dont want to lose the business to renewables and are trying their best to penalize those who choose solar. It hurts many who would want to make the change but dont want to eat the extra cost for something that Im the long run should be cheaper but isnt at the moment with the hurdles you gotta jump with many utility companies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is preventing people from using solar but many electricity providers are either charging people if they go solar and/or preventing them from disconnecting from the grid completely. Some cities actually have laws preventing residents from not connecting to the grid. My point was more to the fact that at the moment local utilities dont want to lose the business to renewables and are trying their best to penalize those who choose solar. It hurts many who would want to make the change but dont want to eat the extra cost for something that Im the long run should be cheaper but isnt at the moment with the hurdles you gotta jump with many utility companies.

 

The only laws I have heard about are the ones where they don't want you to connect your grid to the public grid but that's because they don't want you to energize the grid while they're doing damage repair which could be dangerous for the workers - especially . But that doesn't stop you from using your own solar grid to power your house.

 

Are there other laws that are more restrictive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only laws I have heard about are the ones where they don't want you to connect your grid to the public grid but that's because they don't want you to energize the grid while they're doing damage repair which could be dangerous for the workers - especially . But that doesn't stop you from using your own solar grid to power your house.

 

Are there other laws that are more restrictive?

http://www.wftv.com/news/local/want-solar-panels-you-still-have-to-pay-florida-utilities/276475576

 

Im on mobile so I didnt do a detailed search but this article was easily found. At my home we have looked into solar but would still end up paying our electric company even if we didnt use their power. We will eventually make the switch as our desire is to be green but we would rather be green and save some green at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears to be a Florida thing and I agree it's overreaching. However, if you're connected to the grid but don't use the grid for power then your bill should be close to $0. It doesn't prevent you from using solar energy.

Im in Georgia and would still have to pay. The larger point is that energy companies, either gas for your car or power for you home, are a main driver in the economy and they are not going to stand by while their customers find better and cheaper alternatives. Not to get political but its no secret that oil and gas are major players in politics even while wind is on a hiring bonanza coal jobs are still being promised. Mean while this is happening https://qz.com/990192/a-chinese-company-wants-to-retrain-wyoming-coal-miners-to-become-wind-farmers/.

 

Again, sorry Im on mobile.

Ill also add that there are several states that are not necessarily friendly to solar for their customers, pretty sure Utah and Nevada are two Ive read about recently.

Edited by boredinbirmingham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears to be a Florida thing and I agree it's overreaching. However, if you're connected to the grid but don't use the grid for power then your bill should be close to $0. It doesn't prevent you from using solar energy.

No it shouldn't -- it still costs the utility to maintain wires, generation capacity, transformers and connections servicing the location. What is worse is when they require to buy excess power back at a certain rate even though the rate could be more than what the utility can sell the excess power at.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't -- it still costs the utility to maintain wires, generation capacity, transformers and connections servicing the location. What is worse is when they require to buy excess power back at a certain rate even though the rate could be more than what the utility can sell the excess power at.

 

 

 

I know there is a cost - that's why I said close to $0. But it should be no different than me shutting off my main breaker all month. I still have a connection but 0 usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know there is a cost - that's why I said close to $0. But it should be no different than me shutting off my main breaker all month. I still have a connection but 0 usage.

That is a very good point. I guess, for me, being off the grid means off the grid and not paying the power company fees for not using their product. Eventually we, hopefully, will be able to charge an electric car at home for free and enjoy the instant torque when stabbing the electric throttle. Having ridden in a Tesla I must admit I am hoping for a move from gas to electric sooner rather than later. On a side note it wasnt too long ago when mules were what powered farming and industry, to go from that to steam and then oil/gas the next step is bound to come sometime. To go to solar would again put the user in control of their energy source just like owning a mule did way back then. Ok, rant over lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I have a few problems that would be hard to over come.

 

1. My house faces a NW/SE configuration. I have two roof lines with the house and garage that could be used. But neither of them faces directly south. Only way I'd be able to do it efficiently would be to get some mounted on a pole that I could face south.

 

2. I live in North Dakota. Winter sun here is squat. And very shallow angle. Because of that, I'd have to have them mounted on a pole to get away from the snow, and adjustable, so the could be basically vertical in the winter.

 

3. Due to diminished capacity in the winter, it would probably take me twice as long to re-coupe my costs as it would say someone in Texas.

 

4. The local co-op that runs electricity to my rural home doesn't pay back money. If my meter were to run negative, they'd still bill me the usual "hook up service fee". I've seen this happen with wind generator people. Now WIND, I have plenty of!

 

I don't want a windmill in my yard. I'm limited to 25 foot high structure due my covenant. Just don't want the noise. However if solar cells got cheap enough and high enough efficiency, I have an area in my back yard near my 12x16 shed I could put some in. Put an inverter in the shed, and run a line to the house. I'd still piss off the local co-op, but oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know there is a cost - that's why I said close to $0. But it should be no different than me shutting off my main breaker all month. I still have a connection but 0 usage.

They still have to maintain that line to your house as well as make sure that the neighborhood transformers can supply your house at 100/200amps of service, they need to keep generation facilities open to supply that amount of power if demand is requested. If you totally cut all service from the power company that is fine but your backup system to the grid costs the utility company money if you're not paying the other uses of the system are subsidizing you. Basically you'd be paying $10 a month for an insurance policy to make sure if something happened you could use the grid again. While it many seem like nothing with just one to 2 homes do that, it become much more noticeable when 20% of the homes are doing that. If that many people go green should the utility be forced to keep generation production for people that are not using it?

 

It is the same reason that water systems that just charge for usage are unfair as family's subsidize single people in the systems fixed cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still have to maintain that line to your house as well as make sure that the neighborhood transformers can supply your house at 100/200amps of service, they need to keep generation facilities open to supply that amount of power if demand is requested. If you totally cut all service from the power company that is fine but your backup system to the grid costs the utility company money if you're not paying the other uses of the system are subsidizing you. Basically you'd be paying $10 a month for an insurance policy to make sure if something happened you could use the grid again. While it many seem like nothing with just one to 2 homes do that, it become much more noticeable when 20% of the homes are doing that. If that many people go green should the utility be forced to keep generation production for people that are not using it?

 

It is the same reason that water systems that just charge for usage are unfair as family's subsidize single people in the systems fixed cost.

 

I'm not arguing the long term economics or whether it's fair or not. I'm simply pointing out that as a consumer you may be required to be connected to the grid, but that doesn't mean you have to use any electricity from the grid. Now maybe they have minimum usage fees in which case that would cover the infrastructure. If not then you could be paying $0 or almost $0 if your usage is 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are the GA restrictions and with which provider?

Sorry, I didnt know this part of the convo got moved. Im looking on my providers website and there isnt a mention of fees but we were told on the phone and the regulations for connecting to the grid are a requirement for the city if I remember correctly (again over the phone). I dont mind paying for usage if we would need supplemental energy and I understand the maintenance of the lines. I will also say that the provider had a rebate for installation that would cover fees for about a year or so but when looking long term it wasnt enough. Now this was last year when we were looking and we decided to wait. Our goal was to come off grid, that may not be the case for everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until you've worked in the utility industry, you really have no idea just how complex the grid systems are and what it takes just to operate it, let alone maintenance of the grid itself and generation facilities. It's a huge industry. Furthermore the grid is woven into our society in many ways that most people don't even realize exist. The national grid is probably responsible for more of our society's progress over the last century than any other invention. That is why state (and even the federal) governments are moving to protect it; not because your local utility hired some expensive lobbyists.

 

Going solar at home sounds like such a simple panacea. It's not that simple and there are very good reasons why your state and local governments are starting to enforce "fair share" payments even if you generate your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know there is a cost - that's why I said close to $0. But it should be no different than me shutting off my main breaker all month. I still have a connection but 0 usage.

 

For us here on our co-op, that fee is $27.34. I know that because for the last 7 months, we have generated more electricity with our solar panels than we have used, and our bill has been a total of $27.34, banking a credit each month.

 

There was a law in progress here in MO (I think it was tabled) that would allow utilities to charge up to 75% more for a connection fee for solar customers. That would mean my rate would go up up to $20/month more just because I added solar panels. This is supposedly to cover the additional cost for transmission lines that most customers pay by using electricity.

 

However, if I over-produce, I get much less per kWh generated than I pay for consumed. I pay $0.08/kWh, but i get paid $0.02/kWh. Production cost is $0.02, so that means EVERYONE is paying $0.06/kWh for distribution and other associated costs, along with the $27.34 connection fee monthly.

 

So, it's OK to charge the person who adds solar an extra $20/month, but not the person who switches to gas heat, or a gas water heater, or LED lights. Don't forget, many of these same companies have give you rebates for putting in geothermal heat and A/C, or adding more efficient appliances, all in an effort to use less electricity. Explain that all to me as to how that is not singling out solar customers to limit the addition of new personal solar systems.

 

We won't even mention the amount of power that solar customers add to the grid during peak times in the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds exactly like the issue with electric vehicles and road taxes.

 

See, I view that as different. Everyone pays $x/month just to have service. That should cover the costs necessary to bring service to your door, whether you use $1 in electricity per month or $1000. It shouldn't matter. Make that fee the same for everyone because it doesn't cause any more wear and tear on the distribution lines if you are using 2000kWh/month vs using 10kWh.

 

With an electric car, you are paying $0 in taxes to use the roads. That needs to be made up somewhere. The more you drive, and the heavier your vehicle, the more wear and tear there is on the road. Personally, I think everyone should pay a fee based on miles driven and the weight rating of your vehicle. That sucks for me, because I have a heavy truck, but since I tear up the road more with my fifth wheel, I should have to pay more to use the roads. This is already taken into account with fuel taxes, but I vote to abolish the fuel tax and just make a road tax. I'm sure that's more difficult to collect, and therein lies the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - that's not the part I was referencing.

 

I was talking about the dilemma where you build a usage based fee structure to cover infrastructure costs thinking that everyone would have usage (gas tax for roads, kw/hrs for electric grid). Then something comes along (electric cars, self-sufficient solar power) that reduces the usage and threatens the funding source for the infrastructure so you have to come up with alternate ways to fund the infrastructure such as increasing rates or a mileage tax for roads or requiring a connection with minimum fees or finding a new funding source such as property taxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - that's not the part I was referencing.

 

I was talking about the dilemma where you build a usage based fee structure to cover infrastructure costs thinking that everyone would have usage (gas tax for roads, kw/hrs for electric grid). Then something comes along (electric cars, self-sufficient solar power) that reduces the usage and threatens the funding source for the infrastructure so you have to come up with alternate ways to fund the infrastructure such as increasing rates or a mileage tax for roads or requiring a connection with minimum fees or finding a new funding source such as property taxes.

 

Gotcha...and I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...