dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
33

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA to nunya

Premium Member

to nunya

Re: [Electrical] Hawaii Solar Boom So Successful, It's Been Halted

Solar panels installed in New York man's home won't ever generate enough electricity to cover the $42,480 cost to install.

By the numbers for the panels He installed in 2009:

$42,480, total project cost.

$29,504, combined value of subsidies and tax credits.

$12,976, Punton's investment.

15,000, approximate kilowatt hours generated so far by solar panels, as of July 1.

18.6 cents, average residential retail cost of electricity per kilowatt hour, May 2013.

$2,790, approximate value of electricity generated by solar panels to date.

I think it is outrageous that $29,504 of tax money extracted from others was used to finance this. The only ones gaining are the solar companies selling and installing them.

stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
Premium Member
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA

stevek1949

Premium Member

Pocono Raceway installed a large scale PV array in 2010. It generates enough power to supply the track fully. There ia real-time display available. Realize that it's in the NE section of PA and gets a little cloudy this time of year. But it is still generating power.

»live.deckmonitoring.com/ ··· _raceway

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

How much did the system cost to install and how much has it actually saved them? Just because they have it and their site has data what does it actually show?

stevek1949
We're not in Kansas anymore
Premium Member
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA

1 recommendation

stevek1949

Premium Member

Somehow I knew that I could count on you Jack! A little research goes a long way;

»thetimes-tribune.com/new ··· 1.911677

Eyeballs
Premium Member
join:2000-04-25
Worcester, MA

Eyeballs to Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

to Jack_in_VA
I completely agree. This technology isn't mature enough to go main stream. It doesn't cut energy costs. It just moves the cost from one supplier to another.

I found this out when I looked into PV's for my house.

After incentives and tax credits, my cost would have been roughly $26,000 to produce $120-$130/mo in power. $48,000 before all the incentives. $48k that I would have to initially finance up front then refinance or pay down the original loan after I received the incentive/tax credit funds.

It would have taken 15-18 years to break even and with these panels lasting only 20 years, I'd really have only 2-5 years of free energy. And that's the best case scenario. Not worth it.

I'm in the NE. We get snow. I hate shoveling. I think I'd hate shoveling the roof even more.
H_T_R_N (banned)
join:2011-12-06
Valencia, PA

H_T_R_N (banned) to Jack_in_VA

Member

to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

How much did the system cost to install and how much has it actually saved them? Just because they have it and their site has data what does it actually show?

What does it matter how much if any it saves them? From what I remember it had nothing to do with cost savings, and everything to do with being a bit more green. As as long as they did not use any public money to do it, who cares if they never recoup the install cost? There are some who are willing to spend a little to advance the adoption of cleaner power.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

2 edits

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

However they did use public money,
quote:
federal renewable energy credits will make the project affordable.
This is a "feel good" effort for millionaires and mostly a PR Project for the track to counter the negative impact the track has on the environment. Auto racing cannot be thought of as "Green"

Fronkman
An Apple a day keeps the doctor away
Premium Member
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO

2 edits

1 recommendation

Fronkman to Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

to Jack_in_VA
Click for full size
said by Jack_in_VA:

Solar panels installed in New York man's home won't ever generate enough electricity to cover the $42,480 cost to install.

By the numbers for the panels He installed in 2009:

$42,480, total project cost.

Do you know what is really disingenuous? Using 5 year old price numbers.

I have seen this before. Nothing is ever quite good enough for some people in terms of the adoption of PV. There is always some problem: Chinese-made panels, "increased" homeowner's insurance costs, etc, etc. Using old price numbers to support a bogus argument comes with the territory. Should I use the price of my old IBM PS/2 ($3500 in 1987) to make the argument that computers are really expensive?

You are totally ignoring the market manipulation by the power company in the OP's article. Tax incentives are disappearing for solar because the price has dropped so dramatically they are needed any more. The power company is trying to protect profits and massively manipulate the market.

At a macro level, PV generation at the individual home level makes a HUGE amount of sense. Allowing arrays larger than 100% of demand allows for increased generation during the peak hours without building more plants. Existing plants will provide more than enough power for the off-peak times when the PV systems aren't generating.

If your argument is that PV advocates are inflating numbers, don't do the same. Use 2013 (now almost 2014) prices. Don't use anecdotal examples of the most expensive systems you can find on the internet. Your high-priced anecdotes can easily be matched with low-price ones: my array cost $9000 in 2012 (total cost of material and labor, no deductions for tax credits etc) and during a recent conversation with my installer he said that it would only cost $7000 in 2014. A far cry from the $30k systems you are quoting.

This argument will be settled soon. Your argument is that solar doesn't make sense without tax credits. Once the tax incentives are gone let's see what the market says about PV. I'm betting that the number of installed arrays continues to climb.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

If the tax credits are removed and incentives are removed and the cost is completely the responsibility of those installing PV that's fine. We will see what the result of someone having to bear the real cost is.
54067323 (banned)
join:2012-09-25
Tuscaloosa, AL

54067323 (banned) to Jack_in_VA

Member

to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

The only ones gaining are the solar companies selling and installing them.

And a dirty (as in pollution) little secret about solar in residential is, for every megawatt of solar deployed a matching amount of fossil fuel has to be deployed to back it up, the reason being in residential the electrical load begins rising in the early evening to a peak after sunset and with the majority of residential solar installs being grid tie with no local storage they become useless for peak shaving, a false selling point often touted by those who promote and sell such systems.

Out of the lips of a politician or to the green movement solar is the end all solution, but in the real world until massive amounts of electrical storage become practical and cost effective, solar is not ready for prime time generation, nor peak shaving in the residential arena, more so as another green idea that being electric vehicles start coming home to be charged at night.

Now don't get me wrong I am a proponent of solar and in fact I just recently added another panel to my solar domestic hot water system, but that is a mature technology which uses low cost panels allowing for a true un-subsidized ROI which is measured in months not years.
54067323

1 edit

54067323 (banned) to Fronkman

Member

to Fronkman
said by Fronkman:

Do you know what is really disingenuous?

Statements like the one below.

Allowing arrays larger than 100% of demand allows for increased generation during the peak hours without building more plants. Existing plants will provide more than enough power for the off-peak times when the PV systems aren't generating.

Because power plants cannot be clicked on or off line at the flick of a switch, solar which is a variable, therefore an undependable source of power cannot be relied upon to cover daytime peak loads, and at night lacking local storage they cannot be used to shave the residential peak load which occurs after sunset.

pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

This is a "feel good" effort for millionaires and mostly a PR Project for the track to counter the negative impact the track has on the environment. Auto racing cannot be thought of as "Green"

The racetrack sure uses "green" a lot. Currently their PV system is providing 74 KV - »live.deckmonitoring.com/ ··· _raceway it's overcast and cold. I toddle here - »www.eia.gov/electricity/ ··· e5_a.xls which is a department of energy spreadsheet (Excel) and look at how many KW per month the average home uses in Pennsylvania (to estimate how many homes are powered).

According to the DOE for Pennsylvania in 2012 average home energy use per month is 837 KWh. Dividing by 30 my estimate is 27.9 KWh per day per home. I understand this is all average, and not exact. It works out to a bit over a KWh per hour (1.16 more or less). I assume the 84 KW output will sustain through the hour, and become 84KWh (this is done to estimate) after dividing 84 by daily usage my determination is 72.25 average Pennsylvania homes could likely be powered by this 25 acre facility today when the sun is out.

Over here - »thetimes-tribune.com/new ··· 1.911677 we see 1,000 nearby homes will be powered by the raceway. According to CNN Pocono Raceway paid $16,000,000 to install the PV array - »www.autoguide.com/auto-n ··· ide.html (links to a CNN video, I couldn't find the CNN story directly).

I couldn't find information about any subsidy, or much else regarding budget or costs of the project. To the best of my understanding photo voltaic is an intermittent power source and not highly reliable day to day. Utilities must cover all power needs when the sun isn't out, but must be able to scale up and down with solar during the day. The cost to rapidly scale power on a grid likely isn't inexpensive, and someone will have to pay for it.

Pocono Raceway has green everywhere, which seems odd as racing cars is far down on my list of green things to do.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

It's strickly for PR as Auto Racing is one of the least green activities around which includes the massive pollution from the fans driving to and from the track.
54067323 (banned)
join:2012-09-25
Tuscaloosa, AL

54067323 (banned) to pandora

Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

Utilities must cover all power needs when the sun isn't out, but must be able to scale up and down with solar during the day.

Something they cannot do without installing fuel oil or NG fired turbine peakers which are quite expensive to operate, a cost which is passed on to the subscribers.

The cost to rapidly scale power on a grid likely isn't inexpensive, and someone will have to pay for it.

You need to study up on how an interstate electrical grid is managed and balanced and after you do, you might just realize just how incorrect that statement is.
XXXXXXXXXXX1
Premium Member
join:2006-01-11
Beverly Hills, CA

XXXXXXXXXXX1 to Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

If the tax credits are removed and incentives are removed and the cost is completely the responsibility of those installing PV that's fine. We will see what the result of someone having to bear the real cost is.

I looked into a number of solar, geothermal, etc options when I built my house a few years ago.. I couldn't justify the additional expense even with the tax credits included.

leibold
MVM
join:2002-07-09
Sunnyvale, CA
Netgear CG3000DCR
ZyXEL P-663HN-51

leibold to 54067323

MVM

to 54067323
Fossil fuel power plants aren't the only way to meet peak demands and more importantly don't help at all with the issue of excess power from plants that can't be throttled easily.

One solution that I have seen here in California as well as in Europe is hydro-electric power storage. Excess power is used to pump water into an uphill reservoir which is then used to generate power during peak periods. The advantages are that it is "green" technology, rapid response to variations in the grid and that it can be used to store energy on a very large scale (higher capacity then realistically possible with batteries). The disadvantages are low efficiency (compared to electro-chemical storage in batteries) and the large area needed for the reservoir.

cowboyro
Premium Member
join:2000-10-11
CT

cowboyro to Fronkman

Premium Member

to Fronkman
said by Fronkman:

Your high-priced anecdotes can easily be matched with low-price ones: my array cost $9000 in 2012 (total cost of material and labor, no deductions for tax credits etc) and during a recent conversation with my installer he said that it would only cost $7000 in 2014. A far cry from the $30k systems you are quoting.

You're in MO, not NY. In this area labor costs can easily exceed 2-3 times the cost of materials. Actually when I was quoted for my HVAC system, a salesman noted that if I was only 5 miles off in the neighboring county (same state), the system would have been about 2.5k cheaper - all due to labor rates.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to Jack_in_VA

Premium Member

to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

Auto racing cannot be thought of as "Green"

Sure it can, green is a color that's some times used on cars

leibold
MVM
join:2002-07-09
Sunnyvale, CA
Netgear CG3000DCR
ZyXEL P-663HN-51

leibold

MVM

This is way off-topic but there definitely are green car races: World Solar Car Race 2013 .

I'm pretty sure Jack_in_VA See Profile is well aware of electric and solar car races (since he made the effort to point out that visitors to those events still pollute the environment).

Since I'm in California where there is plenty of sunshine I keep getting inundated with offers for cheap or free solar power installations. What I found interesting is that the largest system anybody is offering to install would only be for 50% of average usage (and that is even before anybody checked my usage or determined suitable roof area). I'm not sure what the source of that 50% figure is but it does appear to be a hard limit with all off the solar providers (including offers from out of state businesses).

I would want to use all the suitable roof area, even if that would make me a net energy producer.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

1 recommendation

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Then get one to do 50% and another to do the other 50%
54067323 (banned)
join:2012-09-25
Tuscaloosa, AL

54067323 (banned) to leibold

Member

to leibold
said by leibold:

Fossil fuel power plants aren't the only way to meet peak demands and more importantly don't help at all with the issue of excess power from plants that can't be throttled easily.

I never stated fossil fuel power plants are a way to meet peak demands as they are not designed to do so, what I did state that in order to backfill for the un-reliable nature of solar and wind, fuel oil or NG fired turbine peakers are required to do that job, and due to their efficiency levels and maintenance required they are an expensive solution to a green caused problem.

»www.ge-energy.com/produc ··· vy_duty/

One solution that I have seen here in California as well as in Europe is hydro-electric power storage. Excess power is used to pump water into an uphill reservoir which is then used to generate power during peak periods. The advantages are that it is "green" technology, rapid response to variations in the grid and that it can be used to store energy on a very large scale (higher capacity then realistically possible with batteries). The disadvantages are low efficiency (compared to electro-chemical storage in batteries) and the large area needed for the reservoir.

said by 54067323:

but in the real world until massive amounts of electrical storage become practical and cost effective, solar is not ready for prime time generation.

As I stated, practical is the key word and the process of hydro-storage is not at all practical.

Jack_in_VA
Premium Member
join:2007-11-26
North, VA

1 edit

Jack_in_VA to leibold

Premium Member

to leibold
said by leibold:

Fossil fuel power plants aren't the only way to meet peak demands and more importantly don't help at all with the issue of excess power from plants that can't be throttled easily.

One solution that I have seen here in California as well as in Europe is hydro-electric power storage. Excess power is used to pump water into an uphill reservoir which is then used to generate power during peak periods. The advantages are that it is "green" technology, rapid response to variations in the grid and that it can be used to store energy on a very large scale (higher capacity then realistically possible with batteries). The disadvantages are low efficiency (compared to electro-chemical storage in batteries) and the large area needed for the reservoir.

We have 2 hydro-electric pumped storage plants here in Virginia. You try to build a new one and the enviro wackos go bonkers because they claim ecological damage and environmental damage to fish. In fact they don't want any streams or rivers dammed period.

Bath County Pumped Storage Station

The Bath County Pumped Storage Station is a pumped storage hydroelectric power plant, which is described as the “largest battery in the world”, with a generation capacity of 3,003 MW

Smith Mountain Lake Hydro Power Plant

Smith Mountain Dam houses five hydroelectric generators with a combined installed capacity of 560 MW. Smith Mountain Lake Dam utilizes pumped-storage hydroelectricity by which water that is released downstream can be pumped back into Smith Mountain Lake for re-use.

printscreen
join:2003-11-01
Juana Diaz, PR

printscreen

Member

said by Jack_in_VA:

Smith Mountain Lake Hydro Power Plant

Smith Mountain Dam houses five hydroelectric generators with a combined installed capacity of 560 MW. Smith Mountain Lake Dam utilizes pumped-storage hydroelectricity by which water that is released downstream can be pumped back into Smith Mountain Lake for re-use.

How green is that? Pumping the water back takes energy from another source, likely fossil fuels or the energy from another hydro-electric plant.

Cho Baka
MVM
join:2000-11-23
there

Cho Baka

MVM

The point is to store energy from an efficient plant such as a nuke, and use the stored energy to meet peak demands.

Yes there are conversion losses, but they are less costly than running certain plants for peaking purposes.

leibold
MVM
join:2002-07-09
Sunnyvale, CA
Netgear CG3000DCR
ZyXEL P-663HN-51

leibold to printscreen

MVM

to printscreen
The pump storage power plants are used to average out peaks and valleys in the load on the national power grid. It allows plants that cannot easily vary their power output to run continuously while the hydro electric storage plant alternates between using their francis turbines as generators or pumps (perhaps an analogy would be the role of a capacitor in a DC power circuit). Since electric energy is cheap at times of low demand and expensive at the times of peak demand, pump storage power plants tend to operate profitably despite their low efficiency.

Statistics published for all of Germany's pump storage plants (instead of a few large plants like the US, Germany has a large number of smaller plants) show an overall efficiency of over 70% (which is much higher then I expected). The number is derived from the amount of electric energy generated versus the amount of energy used for pumping (which means that rain, meltwater runoff and any other sources of water can boost the overall efficiency figure).

The damming of lakes and river is also very controversial here in California and some previously built dams are now being removed. Building a traditional hydro electric plant depends on running water from a river but the reservoirs for a pump storage power plant can be build in barren rock (reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the environment).

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium Member
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

1 recommendation

Thespis

Premium Member

...until someone discovers a new species of lizard living in the rocks.
54067323 (banned)
join:2012-09-25
Tuscaloosa, AL

2 recommendations

54067323 (banned)

Member

said by Thespis:

...until someone discovers a new species of lizard living in the rocks.

And brings that to the attention of an old species of reptiles commonly found in D.C.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to 54067323

Premium Member

to 54067323

And a dirty (as in pollution) little secret about solar in residential is, for every megawatt of solar deployed a matching amount of fossil fuel has to be deployed to back it up, the reason being in residential the electrical load begins rising in the early evening to a peak after sunset and with the majority of residential solar installs being grid tie with no local storage they become useless for peak shaving, a false selling point often touted by those who promote and sell such systems.

Huh? That makes no sense.

Worst case, I'm going to use the same amount of peak energy that I did without solar. More likely, I'm going to use less.

Here's a nice concise report of the yearly peak energy dates and times. They're all during daylight hours when a PV array would likely be generating something

»www.caiso.com/Documents/ ··· tory.pdf

The latest time of peak use was 4:50pm in July, 1999. Sun doesn't set until around 8pm in July here.
54067323 (banned)
join:2012-09-25
Tuscaloosa, AL

54067323 (banned)

Member

said by djrobx:

Worst case, I'm going to use the same amount of peak energy that I did without solar. More likely, I'm going to use less.

Not at home.

Here's a nice concise report of the yearly peak energy dates and times. They're all during daylight hours when a PV array would likely be generating something

Thats sytem peak not residential peak.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Not at home.

Yes, really, at home!

Thats sytem peak not residential peak.

Yes, I'm connected to Edison's grid, which has both businesses and residences on it. What's your point?