• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California to require solar panels on most new homes

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
I saw this and was wondering if they had made any attempt to fix the very real net metering issue,
and found they have netmetering 2.0, that might work.
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/save-big-californias-net-metering-2-0/
So it looks like additional grid connection fees, (it is unclear if those are one time or reoccurring),
and the credit a homeowner receives is retail less 2 cents/kWh.
This might work, because the peaks in supply usually occur during peak demand, but it remains to be seen if 2 cents/kWh
is sufficient to keep the grid stable, without increasing the retail rate.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
47,538
Reaction score
13,930
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
I saw this and was wondering if they had made any attempt to fix the very real net metering issue,
and found they have netmetering 2.0, that might work.
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/save-big-californias-net-metering-2-0/
So it looks like additional grid connection fees, (it is unclear if those are one time or reoccurring),
and the credit a homeowner receives is retail less 2 cents/kWh.
This might work, because the peaks in supply usually occur during peak demand, but it remains to be seen if 2 cents/kWh
is sufficient to keep the grid stable, without increasing the retail rate.

There was an article someone linked some time ago about this California proposal. It just might be practical for most of California, but not everywhere.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[FONT=&quot] Government idiocy / solar power[/FONT]
[h=1]California officially becomes first in nation mandating solar power for new homes[/h][FONT=&quot]‘Historic undertaking’ expected to boost number of rooftop solar panels across the Golden State. From The Orange County Register By Jeff Collins | JeffCollins@scng.com | Orange County Register PUBLISHED: December 5, 2018 at 11:28 am | UPDATED: December 5, 2018 at 3:58 pm California officially became the first state in the nation on Wednesday,…
[/FONT]
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,297
Reaction score
37,678
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The USGS estimates how much oil is considered to be undiscovered but technically recoverable.

"Even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more," Walter Guidroz, coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program said in a statement. "Changes in technology and industry practices can have significant effects on what resources are technically recoverable, and that's why we continue to perform resource assessments throughout the United States and the world."

Oil has been produced in the Wolfcamp area since the 1980s by traditional vertical wells -- but now companies are using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to tap the continuous oil reserve. More than 3,000 horizontal wells are currently operating, according to the USGS.

Morris Burns, a former president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, told KWES the low price of oil -- currently around $46 a barrel -- means the oil will sit underground for the foreseeable future.

"We are picking up a few rigs every now and then but we won't see it really take off until we (get) that price in the $60 to $65 range," Burns told the station.

"When we talk about that many millions of barrels of oil in the ground, that doesn't mean we can recover it all. We recover in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 percent," Burns said.

Last spring, CNN reported that "fracking" now accounted for more than half of all U.S. oil output. Back in 2000, there were just 23,000 fracking wells pumping about 102,000 barrels of oil a day. Last March there were 300,000 fracking wells, churning out 4.3 million barrels per day.

The fracking production, led by Permian Basin, Bakken formation and Eagle Ford, also in Texas, caused oil prices to tumble -- making the $100 barrel ancient history -- to as low as $25 a barrel early this year.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/index.html


It wasn't so much a discovery as a reassessment of assets with consideration for fracking. But fracking only gets 50% of what's there. So the estimate is based on fracking but not realistic fracking. The estimate is "if fracking could recover 100%".

It strikes me as a pro fracking announcement, not a discovery.
 
Last edited:

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/index.html


It wasn't so much a discovery as a reassessment of assets with consideration for fracking. But fracking only gets 50% of what's there. So the estimate is based on fracking but not realistic fracking. The estimate is "if fracking could recover 100%".

It strikes me as a pro fracking announcement, not a discovery.
I think people misunderstand what fracking is, in terms of well production costs.
If a conventional well cost $2 Million to get operational and produces 500 barrels per day,
the fracked well might cost $3 Million and produce 1000 barrels per day, but for a shorter period.
The well might produce 2,000,000 barrels over it's life, the question is, is that life 5 years
with a well cost per barrel of $1.50, or 10 years with a well cost of $ 1.00 per barrel.
Many companies have decided that fracking is not worthwhile, with oil so cheap.
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
I saw this and was wondering if they had made any attempt to fix the very real net metering issue,
and found they have netmetering 2.0, that might work.
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/save-big-californias-net-metering-2-0/
So it looks like additional grid connection fees, (it is unclear if those are one time or reoccurring),
and the credit a homeowner receives is retail less 2 cents/kWh.
This might work, because the peaks in supply usually occur during peak demand, but it remains to be seen if 2 cents/kWh
is sufficient to keep the grid stable, without increasing the retail rate.

This is a good idea. In fact, we should consider a national policy that mandates solar panels on homes. The amount of increased energy would be crazy. There are very few drawbacks. Homes also gain the ability to power themselves, at least for a little while, so if the grid ever goes down that will be exceptionally beneficial. I should know, I had basically this proposal sent to the Wisconsin State Congress 15 years ago.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,934
Reaction score
10,207
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is a good idea. In fact, we should consider a national policy that mandates solar panels on homes. The amount of increased energy would be crazy. There are very few drawbacks. Homes also gain the ability to power themselves, at least for a little while, so if the grid ever goes down that will be exceptionally beneficial. I should know, I had basically this proposal sent to the Wisconsin State Congress 15 years ago.

Plus there'd be alot more houses with power when the inevitable zombie apocalypse happens.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a good idea. In fact, we should consider a national policy that mandates solar panels on homes. The amount of increased energy would be crazy. There are very few drawbacks. Homes also gain the ability to power themselves, at least for a little while, so if the grid ever goes down that will be exceptionally beneficial. I should know, I had basically this proposal sent to the Wisconsin State Congress 15 years ago.
I would be alright with it for new construction, but the grid tie standards and surplus purchase rules need to be standardized
to something that both homeowner and utility can live with.
Keep in mind that with most grid attached systems, the panels do not generate any power if the grid is not present.
You can fake out the inverters, but it needs to be set up for stand alone mode.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Very smart rule for California. Last I looked they had 7 or 8 of the worst 10 ozone and particulate matter polluted cities. Californians love their cars - electric cars and solar panels - a great combination to solve their problems.

The California Solar Energy Info Page

The state also says that the average cost per watt of solar electricity under 10kW total is $5.57, while electricity generation over 10kW has a cost of only $5.07 per 10kW.

Those numbers closely lineup with the cost of electricity consumers buy from a traditional grid, which can be generated using methods that add to air pollution and other environmental damages.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,297
Reaction score
37,678
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except for the obligatory WUWT copy/paste, it looks like everyone is on board. Weird.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
I saw this and was wondering if they had made any attempt to fix the very real net metering issue,
and found they have netmetering 2.0, that might work.
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/save-big-californias-net-metering-2-0/
So it looks like additional grid connection fees, (it is unclear if those are one time or reoccurring),
and the credit a homeowner receives is retail less 2 cents/kWh.
This might work, because the peaks in supply usually occur during peak demand, but it remains to be seen if 2 cents/kWh
is sufficient to keep the grid stable, without increasing the retail rate.

I know you like to consider yourself a PhD in Electrical Engineering, and an expert on all issues Netmetering. My BSEE, along with 40 years of Industrial field experience, including gas turbines, steam turbines, power generation, and much more; just pales in comparison to your vast knowledge.

You may want to read over your link, where it talks about peak usage rates. The technology and concepts have been around since the first power plants in 1920. California utilities charge customers more $/kWH during peak hours. I worked for many large industrial electricity users, and it was common practice to shift production and loading to off-peak hours. Some Utilities up the rate of the entire bill, if companies experience maximum loading during peak hours.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know you like to consider yourself a PhD in Electrical Engineering, and an expert on all issues Netmetering. My BSEE, along with 40 years of Industrial field experience, including gas turbines, steam turbines, power generation, and much more; just pales in comparison to your vast knowledge.

You may want to read over your link, where it talks about peak usage rates. The technology and concepts have been around since the first power plants in 1920. California utilities charge customers more $/kWH during peak hours. I worked for many large industrial electricity users, and it was common practice to shift production and loading to off-peak hours. Some Utilities up the rate of the entire bill, if companies experience maximum loading during peak hours.
Your comments have nothing to do with if the proposed 2 cents/kWh will be sufficient to pay for grid operations.
Of course there are peak hours, for large users, and in warm states the solar increase will likely line up with the higher demand.
It is only logical that hot sunny days, are likely to have more AC demand.
But again still nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the grid.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your comments have nothing to do with if the proposed 2 cents/kWh will be sufficient to pay for grid operations.
Of course there are peak hours, for large users, and in warm states the solar increase will likely line up with the higher demand.
It is only logical that hot sunny days, are likely to have more AC demand.
But again still nothing to do with the cost of maintaining the grid.

The 2 cents / kWH is nothing but a GIFT to the Utilities. Like me, their PV users are putting forth sizeable investments, and the Utility companies are benefitting. If a Utility buys power on the open market, they have to send that power over the grid, and suffer line loss inefficiencies. Also, solar's peak load contribution, as you mentioned, holds the cost of power down for other customers. If the Utility CEOs can't make enough to line their pockets, they can raise usage fees for their conventional customers.

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 2 cents / kWH is nothing but a GIFT to the Utilities. Like me, their PV users are putting forth sizeable investments, and the Utility companies are benefitting. If a Utility buys power on the open market, they have to send that power over the grid, and suffer line loss inefficiencies. Also, solar's peak load contribution, as you mentioned, holds the cost of power down for other customers. If the Utility CEOs can't make enough to line their pockets, they can raise usage fees for their conventional customers.

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
Please go read up on accounting!
The utility pays for everything (Labor, maintenance, upgrades, ect.) with the difference between the cost of goods sold of electricity, and the retail price.
Forcing the utility to purchase some of their electrical units at the same price they sell them for, only increases the cost of goods sold.
The normal difference between the wholesale and retail price is about 5 cents per Kwh, it is unclear if California's 2 cents per Kwh
will be enough to maintain the grid, I think it is a bit low.
You may argue this all you want, but in the end, the grid is mostly private property, and as such the can dictate how
customers can access their property.
Do you really want to drive utilities to the point where the only systems allowed are grid assist,
because that is where things will head with your approach.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please go read up on accounting!
The utility pays for everything (Labor, maintenance, upgrades, ect.) with the difference between the cost of goods sold of electricity, and the retail price.
Forcing the utility to purchase some of their electrical units at the same price they sell them for, only increases the cost of goods sold.
The normal difference between the wholesale and retail price is about 5 cents per Kwh, it is unclear if California's 2 cents per Kwh
will be enough to maintain the grid, I think it is a bit low.
You may argue this all you want, but in the end, the grid is mostly private property, and as such the can dictate how
customers can access their property.
Do you really want to drive utilities to the point where the only systems allowed are grid assist,
because that is where things will head with your approach.

The more rooftop solar, the better - especially in the Mountain West. You underrate the inefficiency due to voltage loss. This can be 20-30%, of generated power. Rooftop solar is point-of-source. No voltage loss. My neighbors use my excess generated electricity - ZERO VOLTAGE LOSS. A huge savings for the Utility.

Also, Utilities charge a monthly Fixed Fee. That helps cover their Maintenance expense.

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The more rooftop solar, the better - especially in the Mountain West. You underrate the inefficiency due to voltage loss. This can be 20-30%, of generated power. Rooftop solar is point-of-source. No voltage loss. My neighbors use my excess generated electricity - ZERO VOLTAGE LOSS. A huge savings for the Utility.

Also, Utilities charge a monthly Fixed Fee. That helps cover their Maintenance expense.

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.

If you neighbor uses your surplus that means the utility both bought and sold the units for the same price, ZERO net profit,
No maintenance, No payroll, no upgrades, no repair funds, and in the end no utility.
I think we can both agree that a functioning electrical grid is a requirement for grid tied solar.
Your thinking will drive the utility ether out of business, (unlikely) or force them to adopt very spartan rules for grid attachment.
One possible way around it is to separate the electrical providers from the grid operators.
In parts of Texas, Centerpoint owns and operates the grid, the electrical providers pay a per Kwh service fee for any electricity
moved across the grid.
Remember the grids are mostly private property, they could simply deny all solar attachment.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you neighbor uses your surplus that means the utility both bought and sold the units for the same price, ZERO net profit,
No maintenance, No payroll, no upgrades, no repair funds, and in the end no utility.
I think we can both agree that a functioning electrical grid is a requirement for grid tied solar.
Your thinking will drive the utility ether out of business, (unlikely) or force them to adopt very spartan rules for grid attachment.
One possible way around it is to separate the electrical providers from the grid operators.
In parts of Texas, Centerpoint owns and operates the grid, the electrical providers pay a per Kwh service fee for any electricity
moved across the grid.
Remember the grids are mostly private property, they could simply deny all solar attachment.

Renewable customers are not responsible for the Utility Company profit margins. They can raise rates for the customers who have not invested heavily in renewables. They are the ones whose costs are being held down, because of the peak load advantage of rooftop solar. And you continue to ignore the huge voltage loss savings for the Utilities. Why do you ignore FACTS?

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Renewable customers are not responsible for the Utility Company profit margins. They can raise rates for the customers who have not invested heavily in renewables. They are the ones whose costs are being held down, because of the peak load advantage of rooftop solar. And you continue to ignore the huge voltage loss savings for the Utilities. Why do you ignore FACTS?

Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
The Renewable customers may not be responsible for the Utility companies profit margin, but they dependent of the utility company
being there and providing electrical service.
With net metering the utility cannot raise the rates on the non solar customers, because that will also increase the surplus buy back rate.
All they can do is increase the grid connection fees, which as you have said, they already have.
I am not denying that the utility receives some savings by having distributed generation, it just does not matter to them on their price structure.
Consider that if the utility buys 1000 Kwh for 4 cents per Kwh, but because of line losses can only sell 700 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh,
they make $23 dollars.
Now consider them buying the 1000 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh, and selling 980 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh,
They loose $1.80 dollars.
This is no way to run a business.
Now let's consider your hyperbolic stance,
Solar customers should be paid the retail rate, if they produce a surplus. And they should pay the wholesale rate, if they don't produce enough.
In this case during the non sunlight hours, the Utility buys the same 1000 Kwh for 4 cents per Kwh,
but can only sell 700 Kwh at the same 4 cents per Kwh, they loose $28 dollars.
Companies do not react well when their existence in threatened.
They could go before their public utility commissions and likely successfully plead their case, that such net metering plans are untenable.
The other end of the equation, is that the utility only allows grid assist connections, and any surplus, simply becomes utility power, the solar homeowner
only gets their direct savings. ( this would really slow the growth of solar.)
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Renewable customers may not be responsible for the Utility companies profit margin, but they dependent of the utility company
being there and providing electrical service.
With net metering the utility cannot raise the rates on the non solar customers, because that will also increase the surplus buy back rate.
All they can do is increase the grid connection fees, which as you have said, they already have.
I am not denying that the utility receives some savings by having distributed generation, it just does not matter to them on their price structure.
Consider that if the utility buys 1000 Kwh for 4 cents per Kwh, but because of line losses can only sell 700 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh,
they make $23 dollars.
Now consider them buying the 1000 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh, and selling 980 Kwh at 9 cents per Kwh,
They loose $1.80 dollars.
This is no way to run a business.
Now let's consider your hyperbolic stance,

In this case during the non sunlight hours, the Utility buys the same 1000 Kwh for 4 cents per Kwh,
but can only sell 700 Kwh at the same 4 cents per Kwh, they loose $28 dollars.
Companies do not react well when their existence in threatened.
They could go before their public utility commissions and likely successfully plead their case, that such net metering plans are untenable.
The other end of the equation, is that the utility only allows grid assist connections, and any surplus, simply becomes utility power, the solar homeowner
only gets their direct savings. ( this would really slow the growth of solar.)

Renewable customers are not responsible for the profit margin of the Utility. The Utility must provide service for all customers in their service area.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
31,689
Reaction score
10,364
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Renewable customers are not responsible for the profit margin of the Utility. The Utility must provide service for all customers in their service area.
In order for the utility to provide services for all of their customers, they have to make enough money for sustained operation.
Also the service that they are required to provide is ONLY electrical power delivery, not purchase.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
47,538
Reaction score
13,930
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Renewable customers are not responsible for the profit margin of the Utility. The Utility must provide service for all customers in their service area.

Well, my utility charges me to be hooked up even if I use zero.
 

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
14,638
Reaction score
6,475
Location
NY
Gender
Female
This is a good idea. In fact, we should consider a national policy that mandates solar panels on homes. The amount of increased energy would be crazy. There are very few drawbacks. Homes also gain the ability to power themselves, at least for a little while, so if the grid ever goes down that will be exceptionally beneficial. I should know, I had basically this proposal sent to the Wisconsin State Congress 15 years ago.

Sure...make owning a home even more out of reach of many people.

Even better..lets tax text messages!....who wants to move to CA!!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ssages-critics-call-regressive-absurd-n947471
 
Last edited:

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure...make owning a home even more out of reach of many people.

Even better..lets tax text messages!....who wants to move to CA!!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ssages-critics-call-regressive-absurd-n947471

Homes could be a little more expensive. Electric rates will be held down counteracting the additional expense. I have solar PVs. It's great to get a near-ZERO electric bill. I even power my Chevy Volt, so I have almost ZERO gasoline expenditures as well.

The positive impacts to California's worst-in-the-country air pollution will also offset the expense of the solar panels. Otherwise other more expensive methods would have been employed.
 
Top Bottom