solar

[dcg9381]

Also consider that power generation by way of fossil fuels isn't shut down because you are using solar a handful of hours per day, so your "offset" of solar is really just creating incremental demand/use of fossil fuels and resources.

So I think that's a valid argument. In countries that are green power heavy, mixing solar and wind into the grid seems to work well, until you get to a point in time where their variability results in the inability to plan for dino power. I hear it's around 20%.

CA is an interesting place because they've mandated all new construction must have solar. Based on that, they can probably plan infrastructure changes and overall grid need changes.

I'm assuming (as a pilot) that predicting an overcast day can be done within relative accuracy of about 3 days time. I just don't think anyone is bothering to do that in traditional power generation stations.

EVs are net negative on fossil fuels? I don't get it. Maybe it it was wrapped up in the design and implmentation batteries and electric motors, but all cars require fuel to be built. And I think it "depends" on what you're replacing with the EV? A Honda Civic probably won't be a big offset, but these darn EVs are supercar fast and last time I looked the new trucks could do 10,000 lbs towing... I could sell the corvette and the truck, have one vehicle that preforms better than both!

And looks, we've got in-between. I had a Civic hybrid (most boring super reliable car I ever owned). Great car, just hated it.

Politically (ugh oh) - I install solar on the side. I own a dino powered LS-2, and a diesel dino powered 1-ton dually. Whose side am I on?

 

[jkeyser14]

Going solar doesn't lower your carbon footprint, what do you think solar panels are made from? Where do you think the energy comes from to produce solar panels, and then ship them to your house? Also consider that power generation by way of fossil fuels isn't shut down because you are using solar a handful of hours per day, so your "offset" of solar is really just creating incremental demand/use of fossil fuels and resources.

Not sure if this is political or not but people think buying solar and EVs is doing something to the environment...and it is, but at this point it's just using more fossil fuels to create something that didn't exist, and isn't reducing our current consumption. It's a net negative at this point until you can store energy and reduce production to offset.

With the invention of the internet I don't know how people like you can still be so ignorant. Solar panels are carbon neutral at 3 years and carbon negative after that. There are plenty of scientific papers on that fact.

And fossil fuel plants just don't keep burning shitloads of fuel when it isn't needed, they try to scale fuel consumption based on load, otherwise they are wasting their own money. Plus solar power helps prevent peaker plants from needing to come online during times of peak use.

 

[lkjk]

With the invention of the internet I don't know how people like you can still be so ignorant. Solar panels are carbon neutral at 3 years and carbon negative after that. There are plenty of scientific papers on that fact.

And fossil fuel plants just don't keep burning shitloads of fuel when it isn't needed, they try to scale fuel consumption based on load, otherwise they are wasting their own money. Plus solar power helps prevent peaker plants from needing to come online during times of peak use.

Plenty of nonsense on the internet, including your post. There are plenty of "scientific papers" on both sides of everything, not a valid argument. Watch planet of the humans, produced by michael moore, if you're really curious (not my only source of info on this topic, hes just super left and the last person you would expect to debunk the "green" movement).

I personally would love to have solar if it made sense financially and actually did anything for the planet. I look into it seriously every couple years, and like an EV, it still isn't a net positive or even neutral for the world/environment, although they do have really good marketing.

It is fascinating there are so many people out there that think the majority of the world's population just hates green energy for some reason and wants to keep continuing to burn fossil fuels (because we hate the earth?). The point is green energy, in its current state, is a fallacy, so the only strategy to get people to convert to fake greenery, yours included, is to shame people into submission (I'm ignorant, remember, but thank you for enlightening me). But, what do i know, all my news probably comes from infowars or something

 

[Sumboodie]

just got an e-mail newsletter from my POC. "Solar customers already connected to the grid before March 1, 2022 can remain on the existing Net Energy Metering (NEM) rate through December 31, 2030 unless they add battery storage with incentives, modify or replace their existing system or move into a new home that has solar installed."

The new rate is 7.4 cents kWh buyback. So time of day pricing at 6-8 pm when the 110F heat is coming in here, and the solar isn't putting out is about 35 cents a kWh. But the excess power one generates from 11am to 3pm gets sold back at 7.4 cents kWh.

Does anyone think they can make the math work at that? If so I'd like to know how. And that newsletter was written before Ukraine was invaded and Brent crude went to $106 barrel today. Also as to EV, how do you charge your EV car during the day when your solar is producing, when it is 40 miles from home at the office. Long extension cord or something?

It's sold back at 0.05 here, but that's calculated monthly.

IE, I made 500 kwhr of power, used 200kwhr, then they owe me $15

 

[reader2580]

There are very few solar panels made in the USA for sale for residential installations. A number of USA made panels were made in the USA specifically for government incentive programs that required USA made panels. Minnesota had a solar incentive program for a few years that required the panel be made in Minnesota. One company basically shipped solar panel "kits" from their factory in Washington state to be assembled in Minnesota to qualify for the program. They closed up the Minnesota facility as soon as the program ended.

A company called First Solar is a relatively large solar panel maker making panels here in the USA. They sell wholesale to companies building utility scale solar. Most of the large USA manufacturers of solar panels closed up in the 2010s for a variety of reasons.

 

[Git]

So I think that's a valid argument. In countries that are green power heavy, mixing solar and wind into the grid seems to work well, until you get to a point in time where their variability results in the inability to plan for dino power. I hear it's around 20%.

CA is an interesting place because they've mandated all new construction must have solar. Based on that, they can probably plan infrastructure changes and overall grid need changes.

I'm assuming (as a pilot) that predicting an overcast day can be done within relative accuracy of about 3 days time. I just don't think anyone is bothering to do that in traditional power generation stations.

EVs are net negative on fossil fuels? I don't get it. Maybe it it was wrapped up in the design and implmentation batteries and electric motors, but all cars require fuel to be built. And I think it "depends" on what you're replacing with the EV? A Honda Civic probably won't be a big offset, but these darn EVs are supercar fast and last time I looked the new trucks could do 10,000 lbs towing... I could sell the corvette and the truck, have one vehicle that preforms better than both!

And looks, we've got in-between. I had a Civic hybrid (most boring super reliable car I ever owned). Great car, just hated it.

Politically (ugh oh) - I install solar on the side. I own a dino powered LS-2, and a diesel dino powered 1-ton dually. Whose side am I on?

California is full of idiots elected by other idiots.

The grid is collapsing, we have the highest electrical rates in the nation (not counting Hawaii). They have shut down nuclear plants years before their expected life span and now they have to build 'temporary' natural gas plants to try to fill in the gap. Our electricity gets turned off (or we get notified it is going to get turned off) when the wind picks up. One of the largest Electrical Utilities has declared bankruptcy, and electrical rates continue to sky rocket. The Governor's lap dogs on the Public Utility Commission tried to basically gut the residential solar market but had the table their plan due to public out cry. (They think it is unfair that only 'wealth' people can afford solar panels. Well, who do you think is buying EV's when the average cost is $56,437?)

Also, California over produces solar electricity on some days, has not developed any time of plan or system to store the excess and basically gives it away for free or at a loss to neighboring states

Even Musk realizes we need to increase our fossil fuel production

 

[theoldwizard1]

... $180 in two large marine batteries, ...

Marine/RV batteries are the biggest scam in the lead-avid battery world. They are NOT true "deep discharge" ! If it has a CCA or MCA rating, it is not deep discharge. Only golf cart batteries or industrial batteries (hi-Lo, floor cleaner) are true deep discharge.

A pair of 6V, GC2 will cost about the same but have about a 215 Ah rating and will likely last through more charge/discharge cycles.

 

[lkjk]

EVs are net negative on fossil fuels? I don't get it. Maybe it it was wrapped up in the design and implmentation batteries and electric motors, but all cars require fuel to be built. And I think it "depends" on what you're replacing with the EV?

Yep, that's what I meant by that comment, they are a net negative because (anecdotal and purely by my own observations) people are replacing perfectly functioning, newer ICE vehicles, creating demand for new vehicle production when the real solution to being green is just less consumption. Not as anecdotal when you compare the cost of a new EV vs the demographics of people driving 15-20 year old cars that are no longer financially viable to keep operating and HAVE to get a new vehicle, those aren't the people buying EVs.

an EV and solar is hopefully in my future for various reasons, but currently they don't make sense financially or environmentally. People want to subsidize that new technology while it gets developed, cool, but it's hard to get everyone on board when we can't agree on the current state of things in the first place

 

[jkeyser14]

Plenty of nonsense on the internet, including your post. There are plenty of "scientific papers" on both sides of everything, not a valid argument. Watch planet of the humans, produced by michael moore, if you're really curious (not my only source of info on this topic, hes just super left and the last person you would expect to debunk the "green" movement).

I personally would love to have solar if it made sense financially and actually did anything for the planet. I look into it seriously every couple years, and like an EV, it still isn't a net positive or even neutral for the world/environment, although they do have really good marketing.

It is fascinating there are so many people out there that think the majority of the world's population just hates green energy for some reason and wants to keep continuing to burn fossil fuels (because we hate the earth?). The point is green energy, in its current state, is a fallacy, so the only strategy to get people to convert to fake greenery, yours included, is to shame people into submission (I'm ignorant, remember, but thank you for enlightening me). But, what do i know, all my news probably comes from infowars or something

Show me one peer reviewed scientific study in an academic journal that shows that solar panels are never carbon positive during their lifespan. You can't.

 

[jkeyser14]

Yep, that's what I meant by that comment, they are a net negative because (anecdotal and purely by my own observations) people are replacing perfectly functioning, newer ICE vehicles, creating demand for new vehicle production when the real solution to being green is just less consumption. Not as anecdotal when you compare the cost of a new EV vs the demographics of people driving 15-20 year old cars that are no longer financially viable to keep operating and HAVE to get a new vehicle, those aren't the people buying EVs.

an EV and solar is hopefully in my future for various reasons, but currently they don't make sense financially or environmentally. People want to subsidize that new technology while it gets developed, cool, but it's hard to get everyone on board when we can't agree on the current state of things in the first place

When people replace their newer vehicles with EVs, their old cars get traded in or sold as used cars which are purchased by someone else. Switching to EVs is not creating new consumption, it is just offsetting the demand for new ICE vehicles with EVs instead. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[andyvh1959]

I agree, EV are interesting but no where near financially viable over the long run in my opinion, not yet. If EVs are so great for lower running/maintenance costs then there is all the more reason to buy one and run it for decades. But if people are buying EVs to replace older EVs that just throws the "green driver" claim in the toilet. A true green EV driver should drive it until falls apart to get the full value and carbon footprint out of it.

My BIL leases his vehicle, and changes it out every four years at most. He just replaces it and keeps the lease payment the same for years. He has a Nissan Murano now that replaced the Subaru Outback previously, and the Murano has maybe 6,000 miles on it over three years. Now he is asking my opinion about charging an EV, like how long it takes, how convenient is it, etc. My bet he is after my sister to replace the Murano with an EV. Not a good idea I think, because I bet the lease on an EV is a good bit higher than what his lease has been for years. Also, his 2-car detached garage which is 20' behind the house with all concrete in between, has no 240v wiring out to it, just 110v. So he could charge an EV if he lets it sit long enough, which at only 6,000 miles in three years means his lease vehicle spends much more time sitting than driving. But if he wants a fast charge option in his detached garage he is looking at what, $1500 to have that installed?

 

[dcg9381]

Also, California over produces solar electricity on some days, has not developed any time of plan or system to store the excess and basically gives it away for free or at a loss to neighboring states

Even Musk realizes we need to increase our fossil fuel production

CA has mandated solar for all new residences. This mandate makes sense to me if the "capacity" in that mandate is low, maybe 20% of typical residential power use, as that lowers total power consumption for the grid without pushing too much back.

The key to "solar" is storage. Musk "realizing" that we need fossil fuel production (he's probably right) is at the same time building "solar roof systems" and MASSIVE battery storage capacity (commercial) out of Houston.

 

[Git]

Starting in 2020, California mandated that new residential construction be “net-zero energy”. That's not 20%, that is 100% offset. Then 2 years later, the Public Utility Commission tried gutting the net metering agreement which would make it almost 20 years for any solar system to break even on costs.

Here is a phrase most people are not familiar with. 'solar curtailment' Solar curtailment is when there is too much energy being produced and something needs to be cut back. And what source of energy do you think they cut back on? Dirty nasty coal or gas fired plants? Nuke plants? NO - they cut back on SOLAR

"Solar is by far the most dominant source of energy that undergoes curtailment in the state. EIA said 94% of power curtailments in 2020 involved solar energy."

Solar power is targeted most often when California orders curtailments

Around 5% of utility-scale solar production was curtailed in 2020. Policy leaders are using a number of tools to reduce this waste of renewable energy.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Jeepxj used to like to post the 'solar duck curve' graphic to show how much more solar electricity is being produced in California and this will power the way forward for the grid and electric vehicles, etc. As I pointed out to him, the duck curve was developed to show the problem with excess solar production. They have known about this since 2013 yet virtually nothing has been done except force new 'green' mandates on us. Along with the required solar panel mandate, more and more cities are banning natural gas in new construction, which means everything in a house will need to be electric...

Home Batteries - Have you actually looked into how much they cost? They are based on the size of your system, so I would need 2 powerwalls at a cost of about $20K Installed. Why not just buy a whole home, natural gas generator for that?

 

[dcg9381]

Home Batteries - Have you actually looked into how much they cost? They are based on the size of your system, so I would need 2 powerwalls at a cost of about $20K Installed. Why not just buy a whole home, natural gas generator for that?

Thanks for the "duck curve" - I completely agree. Countries that are "more green" than the US have run into green power saturation associated problems and CA should have "known better". I didn't know that there was that much green power in CA already.

That does not mean that the rest of us (or our states) have the same issue.

On your question above, I could not agree more. I tell "clients" (or people who are doing really fancy systems where I'll consult on a design) that if the goal is to have reliability and sustainable backup power, you want a generator. The powerwalls (and similar systems) do have one big advantage and it's "switch time" - they can literally turn on so fast that most home appliances won't notice. The combination of a single battery system for critical systems and generator that integrates to PV and battery - that's probably the best of all worlds.

My home doesn't have a battery for solar, it has a large generator, so I practice what I preach... Or I'm just too cheap to piss away a bunch of money on massive battery storage. Take your pick.

 

[ybnormal]

Marine/RV batteries are the biggest scam in the lead-avid battery world. They are NOT true "deep discharge" ! If it has a CCA or MCA rating, it is not deep discharge. Only golf cart batteries or industrial batteries (hi-Lo, floor cleaner) are true deep discharge.

A pair of 6V, GC2 will cost about the same but have about a 215 Ah rating and will likely last through more charge/discharge cycles.

they must be powerful. dmn things weigh more than a large car battery even though they smaller! must be all that extra 'leccy power they store!

 

[theoldwizard1]

they must be powerful. dmn things weigh more than a large car battery even though they smaller! must be all that extra 'leccy power they store!

While not perfectly accurate, one quick way to compare lead acid batteries is to weigh them. More lead is better !

 

[ybnormal]

While not perfectly accurate, one quick way to compare lead acid batteries is to weigh them. More lead is better !

all I know is when I move them around the store they heavy Heavy HEAVY HEAVY ! ! !

 

[kaffine]

I agree, EV are interesting but no where near financially viable over the long run in my opinion, not yet. If EVs are so great for lower running/maintenance costs then there is all the more reason to buy one and run it for decades. But if people are buying EVs to replace older EVs that just throws the "green driver" claim in the toilet. A true green EV driver should drive it until falls apart to get the full value and carbon footprint out of it.

Why does the green EV driver need to drive a EV until it falls apart? It isn't like when they trade it in after 3 years they crush the car. They are trading it in and the now used car is being sold to someone else at a lower price than new. The second owner is likely someone that wouldn't buy a new EV so it is now replacing an ICE again. If someone is really about getting EV out there to help then they should be buying a new EV as often as they can and sell their old one at a loss. As you are pointing out it is better to get the older more polluting cars off the road. The people driving those cars normally are not buying new cars EV or otherwise. So getting more EV on the used market is going to help more than one person buying an EV and keeping it until it goes to the shredder.

My previous car to my EV was a 12 year old VW TDI with 200k miles on it that I bought new.

 

[u3b3rg33k]

CA has mandated solar for all new residences. This mandate makes sense to me if the "capacity" in that mandate is low, maybe 20% of typical residential power use, as that lowers total power consumption for the grid without pushing too much back.

The key to "solar" is storage. Musk "realizing" that we need fossil fuel production (he's probably right) is at the same time building "solar roof systems" and MASSIVE battery storage capacity (commercial) out of Houston.

storage doesn't have to be battery. it can be thermal, too. it's cheap and easy to convert kWh into heat, and thermal batteries (like, these unit heaters for example) laugh at the cycle life of lithium/lead acid batteries. https://www.steffes.com/ets/room-unit/

a great example of this is hotels. they're full of PTACs. but do most of them opt for the heat pump PTAC? no. they go with the electric heat PTAC, because it saves $50 per unit. they don't care about the long term energy savings, they'll just charge the customer a slightly higher daily rate to make up the difference. think of how big the service has to be for a 100 room hotel with 100 3kW heaters, plus the stairwell heaters, that do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone but the first cost for the original purchaser.

Thanks for the "duck curve" - I completely agree. Countries that are "more green" than the US have run into green power saturation associated problems and CA should have "known better". I didn't know that there was that much green power in CA already.

That does not mean that the rest of us (or our states) have the same issue.

On your question above, I could not agree more. I tell "clients" (or people who are doing really fancy systems where I'll consult on a design) that if the goal is to have reliability and sustainable backup power, you want a generator. The powerwalls (and similar systems) do have one big advantage and it's "switch time" - they can literally turn on so fast that most home appliances won't notice. The combination of a single battery system for critical systems and generator that integrates to PV and battery - that's probably the best of all worlds.

My home doesn't have a battery for solar, it has a large generator, so I practice what I preach... Or I'm just too cheap to piss away a bunch of money on massive battery storage. Take your pick.

the "duck curve" is also a symptom of how we do power in the USA. if you were a 3 generation family owned widget business, making widgets the way granpappy did back in the day when men were men, and Bob's widgets are cheaper, faster, lighter, and more durable, and he puts you out of business, you failed to adapt. that's not bob's problem. unless you're a shareholder owned utility, then someone has done you wrong, and you deserve protection. Woe is me!

naturally there's a need for power supply to be stable, but we aren't seeing that with PG&E anyways, so that argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

california (and/or PG&E) appears to have made mistakes along the way. if you heavily incentivize south facing solar, you are creating an eventual management problem for yourself. I'm not aware of any plans to manage that. an obvious one would seem to be "incentivize east facing systems" so that the generation bell curve is flatter. flatter is good. it's not the only solution, but it's better than just installing systems that maximize ROI based on net metering.

other options include REDUCING prices when solar generation is peaking. "it's peak hours so power is expensive" but is it? sounds like that's not the case. assuming capitalism is the answer, then the price should match the supply. too much supply, price goes down. this will increase consumption, which helps fix the issue.

another option is more time shifting of loads. a kWh not consumed is the same to the grid during a capacity crunch as an extra kWh generated, but without the load on equipment. Samsung has a built-in option for their fridges to be aware of the grid's needs and do things like "not run the 500W defrost heater during peak times.

https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202103/20210311150651162/DA68-04132A-02_EN_MES_CFR.pdf

but you can't just tell it "defrost when it's dark" with a photocell, or a timer, or a clock. no, you have to tie it into the grid, opt-in to the feature, and before you can do any of that, know it exists. that's not how you get buy-in from the average consumer who just wants ice and cold food.
the 2000 census data says cali has 11 million households. at 500W for 30 minutes, that's a potential 2,750MWh of sheddable load from just fridge defrosters. One fridge doesn't matter, but 11 million of them do. the same goes for electric water heaters, and could go for AC if anything ever comes of that ice bear AC system.

Why does the green EV driver need to drive a EV until it falls apart? It isn't like when they trade it in after 3 years they crush the car. They are trading it in and the now used car is being sold to someone else at a lower price than new. The second owner is likely someone that wouldn't buy a new EV so it is now replacing an ICE again. If someone is really about getting EV out there to help then they should be buying a new EV as often as they can and sell their old one at a loss. As you are pointing out it is better to get the older more polluting cars off the road. The people driving those cars normally are not buying new cars EV or otherwise. So getting more EV on the used market is going to help more than one person buying an EV and keeping it until it goes to the shredder.

My previous car to my EV was a 12 year old VW TDI with 200k miles on it that I bought new.

I'll agree with this. Your used car is an asset someone else hasn't bought yet. new tech always starts out as a rich person's plaything before economies of scale make it a commodity item.

 

[walrus]

storage doesn't have to be battery. it can be thermal, too. it's cheap and easy to convert kWh into heat, and thermal batteries (like, these unit heaters for example) laugh at the cycle life of lithium/lead acid batteries. https://www.steffes.com/ets/room-unit/

a great example of this is hotels. they're full of PTACs. but do most of them opt for the heat pump PTAC? no. they go with the electric heat PTAC, because it saves $50 per unit. they don't care about the long term energy savings, they'll just charge the customer a slightly higher daily rate to make up the difference. think of how big the service has to be for a 100 room hotel with 100 3kW heaters, plus the stairwell heaters, that do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone but the first cost for the original purchaser.



the "duck curve" is also a symptom of how we do power in the USA. if you were a 3 generation family owned widget business, making widgets the way granpappy did back in the day when men were men, and Bob's widgets are cheaper, faster, lighter, and more durable, and he puts you out of business, you failed to adapt. that's not bob's problem. unless you're a shareholder owned utility, then someone has done you wrong, and you deserve protection. Woe is me!

naturally there's a need for power supply to be stable, but we aren't seeing that with PG&E anyways, so that argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

california (and/or PG&E) appears to have made mistakes along the way. if you heavily incentivize south facing solar, you are creating an eventual management problem for yourself. I'm not aware of any plans to manage that. an obvious one would seem to be "incentivize east facing systems" so that the generation bell curve is flatter. flatter is good. it's not the only solution, but it's better than just installing systems that maximize ROI based on net metering.

other options include REDUCING prices when solar generation is peaking. "it's peak hours so power is expensive" but is it? sounds like that's not the case. assuming capitalism is the answer, then the price should match the supply. too much supply, price goes down. this will increase consumption, which helps fix the issue.

another option is more time shifting of loads. a kWh not consumed is the same to the grid during a capacity crunch as an extra kWh generated, but without the load on equipment. Samsung has a built-in option for their fridges to be aware of the grid's needs and do things like "not run the 500W defrost heater during peak times.

https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202103/20210311150651162/DA68-04132A-02_EN_MES_CFR.pdf

but you can't just tell it "defrost when it's dark" with a photocell, or a timer, or a clock. no, you have to tie it into the grid, opt-in to the feature, and before you can do any of that, know it exists. that's not how you get buy-in from the average consumer who just wants ice and cold food.
the 2000 census data says cali has 11 million households. at 500W for 30 minutes, that's a potential 2,750MWh of sheddable load from just fridge defrosters. One fridge doesn't matter, but 11 million of them do. the same goes for electric water heaters, and could go for AC if anything ever comes of that ice bear AC system.


I'll agree with this. Your used car is an asset someone else hasn't bought yet. new tech always starts out as a rich person's plaything before economies of scale make it a commodity item.

Conservation is way to get results quickly. Never heard of the ice bear system, that sounds pretty reasonable.

Back in the 90s my local power company was going to allow discounts on off peak rates to residential consumers. I have a solar hot water system that has electric back up. I have it on a time clock so electric back up only runs at night so I could get that off peak rate. Power company never followed thru but I still run it that way. Makes it so tank temp is the lowest during day when I can heat it with the sun. Now instead of resistant electrical heat I use a Nyle heat pump to heat the water when called for. Too bad Nyle got out of residential add on heat pumps. I heard they had a new unit aimed at residential hot water but haven't seen one yet.

 

[andyvh1959]

When I made the post about driving an EV to get all the use of it versus trading up every few years, I meant it in the similar vein as an ICE vehicle driver that trades in/upgrades every few years, just to have a newer vehicle. In respect to an EV versus an ICE I can see the value of a pre-owned EV going to the secondary market versus an ICE vehicle. At least the EV does displace an ICE vehicle if the new owner had previously been only driving an ICE vehicle. Maybe the better is to use an EV from first owner to final owner as much as possible and not just scrap out an otherwise still usable vehicle. Remains to be seen if an EV can go 200K or 300K+ on the original battery pack.

As soon as current EVs start showing real performance/range degradation due to the battery pack failing I wonder how many EV owners will step up and just replace the battery pack? In a sense, the battery pack replacement could become part of the EV infrastructure if a system becomes common wherein an EV owner can roll into a service station and be out in 30 minutes with a refurb battery pack.

 

[u3b3rg33k]

Conservation is way to get results quickly. Never heard of the ice bear system, that sounds pretty reasonable.

Back in the 90s my local power company was going to allow discounts on off peak rates to residential consumers. I have a solar hot water system that has electric back up. I have it on a time clock so electric back up only runs at night so I could get that off peak rate. Power company never followed thru but I still run it that way. Makes it so tank temp is the lowest during day when I can heat it with the sun. Now instead of resistant electrical heat I use a Nyle heat pump to heat the water when called for. Too bad Nyle got out of residential add on heat pumps. I heard they had a new unit aimed at residential hot water but haven't seen one yet.

the company seems to have been a failed startup, but the underlying tech is simple. any business big enough (like a hospital) to have a thermal plant is a candidate for ice thermal storage:

Energy storage videos

Read white papers on green energy related topics like hvac, airconditioning, renewables, the integration of renewables into the smart grid, the smart grid and thermal storage technologies.

www.calmac.com

here's the residential version. it's basically a 5 ton AC with a chest freezer full of water. make ice when the grid isn't overloaded, then melt it via an anti-freeze loop when you want cooling.

Ice Bear® Storage Module

Thermal Energy Storage for Light Commercial Refrigerant-Based Air Conditioning Units

www.energy.gov

warning: the links are bad in there. the company has gone under or been bought out.

When I made the post about driving an EV to get all the use of it versus trading up every few years, I meant it in the similar vein as an ICE vehicle driver that trades in/upgrades every few years, just to have a newer vehicle. In respect to an EV versus an ICE I can see the value of a pre-owned EV going to the secondary market versus an ICE vehicle. At least the EV does displace an ICE vehicle if the new owner had previously been only driving an ICE vehicle. Maybe the better is to use an EV from first owner to final owner as much as possible and not just scrap out an otherwise still usable vehicle. Remains to be seen if an EV can go 200K or 300K+ on the original battery pack.

As soon as current EVs start showing real performance/range degradation due to the battery pack failing I wonder how many EV owners will step up and just replace the battery pack? In a sense, the battery pack replacement could become part of the EV infrastructure if a system becomes common wherein an EV owner can roll into a service station and be out in 30 minutes with a refurb battery pack.

My big fancy car is over 200k now. I've easily put the price of a replacement tesla battery into it in repairs in the past few years. why?
well, it's a 4 door with a v8 and manual transmission, aka a unicorn. also, why would I buy another one? this one works, and I want to be the one who gets the return from the repair investment. I am probably good for another 100k now.

 

[dcg9381]

As soon as current EVs start showing real performance/range degradation due to the battery pack failing I wonder how many EV owners will step up and just replace the battery pack? In a sense, the battery pack replacement could become part of the EV infrastructure if a system becomes common wherein an EV owner can roll into a service station and be out in 30 minutes with a refurb battery pack.

This has already been an issue since they started building hybrids, it impacts both EV and hybrid to some degree (although most hybrids will function with a massively degraded battery. What I saw was a pretty healthy "aftermarket" in terms of battery "refresh" - you could buy an aftermarket battery replacement or if you were DIY, you could get into testing and replacing individual cells. The OEM cost for a replacement battery pack (I owned a Civic Hybrid) was substantial, I think in the $3-$5k range, where as aftermarket options were a fraction of that cost.

DIY on stuff like this probably gets into "dangerous" DC voltage ranges... But what's going to happen to used Teslas that are on the 2nd or 3rd owner?

As batteries last years (apparently) I don't know if roll-up replacement will ever really become a thing. OEMs would need to standardize, I don't think they are that cooperative...

 

[andyvh1959]

The bane of living in the great white north is how the road salt ravages the vehicles. If my vehicles never showed rust I'd happily drive them/service them well over 200,000 miles. The 2010 Ford Fusion (3.0L V6, automatic) was one of the best most reliable cars I've owned. Great engine, home serviceable. But at 226,000 miles the rust was advancing. If I lived in the south or south west I would be still driving it, and I only paid $4000 for it when I got it out of the company car lease program at 84,000 miles.

 

[ScaldedDog]

The bane of living in the great white north is how the road salt ravages the vehicles. If my vehicles never showed rust I'd happily drive them/service them well over 200,000 miles. The 2010 Ford Fusion (3.0L V6, automatic) was one of the best most reliable cars I've owned. Great engine, home serviceable. But at 226,000 miles the rust was advancing. If I lived in the south or south west I would be still driving it, and I only paid $4000 for it when I got it out of the company car lease program at 84,000 miles.

HP(E) guy? I had a few Fusion company sleds, and the last one, a 2016 AWD 2.0 Ecoboost, was one of the best cars I've ever had. Hated to see it go.

Back to solar stuff...

Mark

 

[reader2580]

A local church had a bunch of tanks where ice was made overnight and that ice was used to cool the church during the day. The system was turned off after about a dozen years, but I never heard why they stopped using it.

 

[nadogail]

A local church had a bunch of tanks where ice was made overnight and that ice was used to cool the church during the day. The system was turned off after about a dozen years, but I never heard why they stopped using it.

They probably realized that it needed a new pump or other repair.

 

[Git]

The Florida House and Senate just passed a bill dealing with net metering.

Florida Power & Light, the nation’s largest power company which wrote the initial legislation, funded a lobbying effort that included direct mail and television ads, and directed $3.2 million in campaign cash to legislators of both parties before rooftop solar expansion in Florida cuts too deeply into its revenues.

Basically they are going to cut the net metering credit each year, but they are going to grandfather in existing customers for 20 years (ya, I have heard that before /s) . So for new customers that install a system:
▪ Between Jan. 1, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2025, energy credits produced from rooftop solar generation will be reduced to 75% of the current value.
▪ Between Jan. 1, 2026, and Dec. 31, 2026, the credit will be reduced to 60% of the current value.
▪ Between Jan. 1, 2027, and Dec. 31, 2028, the credit will be reduced by 50% of the current value.
▪ Beginning Jan. 1, 2029, the billing credit is eliminated.

Any installation in in 2029 = ZERO credit. Remember, they tried something similar in California but has been tabled for now due to tremendous push back.

Clock is ticking for rooftop solar owners: Financial incentives may end after 2028

 

[FredWanaker]

the laws of diminishing returns are at play here. In addition the attitude, "it works for me therefore it will work for you" seems to be a player also. I figure, the oceans rose 350 feet in the last 12,000 years due to mammoth farts or caveman fires I guess. What is another six feet? Someone who works nights and travels less than 50 miles a day is a perfect candidate for an EV. I can't imagine taking a long vacation or coast to coast trip in one. "We'd like a room please, and we need to plug the EV in also tonight for tomorrow's drive but your seven charging stations are all in use." "Yes sir, usually by 9 or 10am they will be free again as people leave. What time would you like a wake up call?"

 

[dcg9381]

The Florida House and Senate just passed a bill dealing with net metering.
Clock is ticking for rooftop solar owners: Financial incentives may end after 2028

Clarify for me - this is for net metered energy credit, meaning Kwh to KwH production? Or a reduction in the dollar value of over production?


IE 2024-2025, if I produce 1Kwh, I'll be credited for .75 Kwh? against my consumption of 1Kwh?

Or does it mean if I over produce, the CASH value of that over production is being reduced?
"energy credits produced from rooftop solar generation will be reduced to 75% of the current value."

 

[Git]

Clarify for me - this is for net metered energy credit, meaning Kwh to KwH production? Or a reduction in the dollar value of over production?


IE 2024-2025, if I produce 1Kwh, I'll be credited for .75 Kwh? against my consumption of 1Kwh?

Or does it mean if I over produce, the CASH value of that over production is being reduced?
"energy credits produced from rooftop solar generation will be reduced to 75% of the current value."

IE 2024-2025, if I produce 1Kwh, I'll be credited for .75 Kwh? against my consumption of 1Kwh?

Yes, that is basically they way I understand it.

Here is an example. In S Cal, we generate excess energy primarily during the winter months - Dec through May. Currently we receive credit at a 1 to 1 ratio for excess electricity pushed to the grid. So if 1 kWh costs 26¢ at the time, then we would get the full 'credit' for 26¢.

Solar customers are placed on a one year billing cycle so we push and pull energy from the grid throughout the year. After the one year, they have what is called the True Up, you pay if you used more than you generated, but if you truly did over generated for the year, they will pay you the wholesale rate - about 4¢ per kWh.

Now, under the Florida law, depending what year you install solar, you would get that reduced amount for 20 years and then it falls to zero. If you install after 1/1/2029, you get zero

 

[u3b3rg33k]

IE 2024-2025, if I produce 1Kwh, I'll be credited for .75 Kwh? against my consumption of 1Kwh?

Yes, that is basically they way I understand it.

Here is an example. In S Cal, we generate excess energy primarily during the winter months - Dec through May. Currently we receive credit at a 1 to 1 ratio for excess electricity pushed to the grid. So if 1 kWh costs 26¢ at the time, then we would get the full 'credit' for 26¢.

Solar customers are placed on a one year billing cycle so we push and pull energy from the grid throughout the year. After the one year, they have what is called the True Up, you pay if you used more than you generated, but if you truly did over generated for the year, they will pay you the wholesale rate - about 4¢ per kWh.

Now, under the Florida law, depending what year you install solar, you would get that reduced amount for 20 years and then it falls to zero. If you install after 1/1/2029, you get zero

sooooo, legalized theft?

 

[mike93lx]

sooooo, legalized theft?

They arent stealing anything. You are giving it to them in exchange for some consideration. If you don't like that, don't export power

 

[u3b3rg33k]

They arent stealing anything. You are giving it to them in exchange for some consideration. If you don't like that, don't export power

not sure why they should get worse than at-time wholesale rate...

oh right, lobbying

 

[mike93lx]

not sure why they should get worse than at-time wholesale rate...

oh right, lobbying

Not justifying it. But it isn't theft.

 

[u3b3rg33k]

Not justifying it. But it isn't theft.

I guess if it's legal it's OK. anyways, let's move on before it devolves into a P word convo.

 

[ybnormal]

Not justifying it. But it isn't theft.

as ubergeek said, iffen it's legal it ain't theft

 

[FredWanaker]

Net metering 3.0 is going into effect in many areas. It allows the energy companies to buy your power wholesale, and then sell you power at retail. You send them extra power at 2pm when they have a surplus so they pay you a fraction of what it is worth retail at 2pm so they can make a profit. At 9pm when your AC is on and you need power, you pay retail. Here they pay 7.4 cents kWh, and if it is between 5 - 8 pm you pay 30 cents kWh. Most of these conversions to net metering 3.0 grandfather in old installations but any major changes to your equipment and you are on the new schedule. Even with that there are sunset dates in Net Metering 3.0. Can't wait for 4.0, imagine what it will look like. It is about Gotcha. Everything these days seems to be about Gotcha.

 

[u3b3rg33k]

Net metering 3.0 is going into effect in many areas. It allows the energy companies to buy your power wholesale, and then sell you power at retail. You send them extra power at 2pm when they have a surplus so they pay you a fraction of what it is worth retail at 2pm so they can make a profit. At 9pm when your AC is on and you need power, you pay retail. Here they pay 7.4 cents kWh, and if it is between 5 - 8 pm you pay 30 cents kWh. Most of these conversions to net metering 3.0 grandfather in old installations but any major changes to your equipment and you are on the new schedule. Even with that there are sunset dates in Net Metering 3.0. Can't wait for 4.0, imagine what it will look like. It is about Gotcha. Everything these days seems to be about Gotcha.

I wonder how Elon's VPP will factor into this.

 

[dcg9381]

not sure why they should get worse than at-time wholesale rate...

oh right, lobbying

Here, it's not lobbying. It's not a democracy. We have a co-op and our "board" decided to discourage solar so we wouldn't be like "California". We now get 50% of the wholesale rate for over-production. I blame me for not paying attention or attending meetings where I had an opportunity to speak up.

We "net meter" monthly though (not yearly) - so that still makes it work for me as we under-produce.

Basically, it's their infrastructure, it's their rules. I agree that the "right" thing to do is pay a wholesale rate if they can store or sell the power that PV is producing at the time. It's a little different if the demand at the time doesn't allow them to sell the power.

Mass storage of power will solve a lot of these issues.