All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

Which Is Cheaper -- Rooftop Solar Or Utility-Scale Solar?

The Brattle Group,with support from the Edison Electric Institute, just released a study concluding that utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States are more cost effective than residential-scale (rooftop) PV systems in achieving the economic and policy benefits we all expect to come from the widespread use of solar energy.

The study was commissioned by First Solar, one of the largest solar companies in America. Titled Comparative Generation Costs of Utility-Scale and Residential-Scale PV in Xcel Energy Colorado’s Service Area, this study is the first to focus on a “solar to solar comparison of equal amounts of residential-scale and utility-scale PV solar deployed on an operating utility system.”

The study found that the cost of generating energy from 300 MW of utility-scale PV solar is roughly one-half the cost per kWh of electricity produced from an equivalent 300 MW of 5kW residential-scale systems when deployed on the Xcel Energy XEL +0.00% Colorado grid. Utility-scale solar remained more cost effective in all scenarios considered in the study, scenarios having different tax credits, monetizations, and inflation rates.

The study also concluded that 300 MW of PV solar deployed in a utility-scale configuration avoids approximately 50% more carbon emissions than an equivalent amount of residential-scale PV solar.

The large difference in costs between utility- and residential-scale systems was attributed to economies of scale and greater solar electric output resulting from optimized panel orientation and tracking assumed for utility-scale systems. The improved orientation and tracking of utility-scale solar resulted in a higher capacity factor than for rooftop solar.

The study found that projected utility-scale PV power costs will range from 6.6¢/kWh to 11.7¢/kWh across all scenarios, while projected power costs for a typical, customer-owned rooftop PV system will range from 12.3¢/kWh to 19.3¢/kWh.

Warren Buffet recently purchased the world’s largest photovoltaic solar array in Bakersfield, California. It is a 5-square-mile 579 MW PV array that cost a little over $2.2 billion. Assuming a capacity factor of 25% over the expected 25-year lifespan, this utility-scale PV will generate 32 billion kWhs in total:

579 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 8766 hours/year x 0.25 x 25 years = 32 billion kWhs

There are no obvious fuel costs, but PV solar has O&M costs of about 1.3¢/kWh, which comes to about $400 million over the life of this array. So to produce 32 billion kWhs at about $2.3 billion means a life-cycle cost of 7¢/kWh. This is getting close to the range of normal baseload providers like coal, nuclear and hydro, which have life-cycle costs of 5.1¢/kWh, 4.1¢/kWh and 2.7¢/kWh, respectively.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...cheaper-rooftop-solar-or-utility-scale-solar/

The article leaves out that utilities have to supply electricity 24 hours a day, rain or shine, according to the demand load. That means the cost to build and operate a gas fired power plant needs to be added to the cost of solar because that will supply power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. You need that generation capacity to supply power when solar can't.

 

[Meandering]

We never had net metering here. It has always been reimbursed at wholesale prices for what you produced, and sold back to you at retail prices.

But all is for nothing anyway, as the utilities are on a percentage mandate. Once their percentage can be met with commercial solar farms, home owners will be SOL on any price they can wiggle out of the utility to compensate them for those solar panels.

And lets not forget that utility stocks are blue chips, held by many pension plans. Profits must be maintained to keep those stock holder happy with dividend checks. It is/was a sucker game to boost numbers to make it look like the economy is/was growing. "Green Energy" sounds pretty, yet ignores clothes lines. If "Green Energy" were truly the goal, there would be mandates for clotheslines and people suing HOAs to be able to put up clothes lines in their yards.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Wow! you make too much sense.

Maybe the regulation should be no work at night, no burning lights. Sun goes down, you go down. Green living at its best. Just like caveman days.

 

[Meandering]

We went through the same exact thing in the '70s.
And we went through it,
For the same exact reasons.

Boost the GDP numbers.

Where are all those 1970's solar panels now? They should be paid off and making pure cash for their owners.

Ooops, sorry, people ripped them down and threw them away.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Solar hot water systems are now back in spades. Many old ones were not maintained and became nonfunctional. People are sensitive to 40 cents a kilowatt-hour pricing.

 

[Meandering]

I was speaking to my bro about those systems this weekend, as I've seen a couple of them here. But they present a unique issue here, because it can get to -10 degrees, and freeze the water inside the solar pipes, but the anti-freeze crystalizes at about 240 degrees, so it's a constant swapping of the juice inside the solar panels that is heating the water for the house. For areas with large temperature swings over the year, it's not settled science yet. This is one of the issues with Geothermal in the Rockies also. Depth to bedrock is too shallow in many places to get the coils below the frost line. He knows a lot more of the technicalities to it all than I do, so I will defer any opinions I might have until I get better information from him.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Solar works well at the equator both for power generation and heating water. Northern latitudes, not so much.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Chambers back APS push for rooftop solar tax

A group of chambers of commerce has come out in favor of Arizona Public Service Co.’s push for a new $21 per month tax on rooftop solar users.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and a group of local chambers have written the Arizona Corporation Commission voicing support for an APS-backed proposal for $21 per month levy on rooftop solar.

“We believe the electric grid is an asset requiring consistent maintenance, improvement and support through investments by all of those who use it,” said Garrick Taylor, a spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry. “We and the 17 other chambers of commerce who signed onto the letter are concerned with cost-shifting to non-solar users, which harms our state’s overall competitiveness, and we believe it’s an issue the Corporation Commission should address,” Taylor said.

Solar advocates oppose the tax and contend APS is a big sponsor of Arizona business groups and chambers.

“Taxing rooftop solar is bad for consumers and bad for the economy. It’s regrettable that organizations that are supposed to be in favor of free markets and consumer choice are siding with a utility monopoly that is determined to drive competitors out of business,” said Barry Goldwater Jr., chairman of a pro-solar groups called Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed or TUSK.

The tax plan is the latest battle between utilities such as APS and solar advocates and an installation industry led Solar City.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/...bers-back-aps-push-for-rooftop-solar-tax.html

Just like electric cars pay no gasoline tax so they get a free ride on the roads, rooftop solar pays no money for the maintenance of the grid or overhead.

California is now considering taxing electric cars for highway maintenance. What? No free ride?

 

[Meandering]

Google Maps can now tell you if it’s worth installing solar panels on your roof

Google wants to help you harness the power of the sun. A new service called Project Sunroof aims to provide a "treasure map" of solar energy with the help of Google Maps. Sunroof gives homeowners detailed information about how much solar power their roof can generate and how much money they could save on electricity costs by adding solar panels.

Sunroof uses data from Google Maps that previously had no practical application. For instance, Sunroof uses Maps’ 3D-modeling to calculate the amount of space a building’s roof has for solar panels. The service also analyzes the positioning of the sun over the course of a year, as well as the type of cloud cover and temperature the neighborhood usually experiences. It even considers the amount of shade cast by nearby objects.

And the sales pitch:
Switching to solar energy can be a win-win scenario for many households. Harnessing a free power source can help save money on the electric bill while ever-so-slightly decreasing the world's dependence on greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels. But it's possible your home doesn't get enough sunlight, and it can be hard to know exactly how much money you'll save. Sunroof can tell users how many hours of usable sunlight they'll get a year, as well as how much available space they have for solar panels on their roof.

If a family decides those cost-saving benefits are good enough, Sunroof will suggest installers nearby who can load the panels. Installing solar panels isn't cheap, costing upwards of $20,000, but the average homeowner can save about $20,000 by switching to solar energy — if their home is in the right spot.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/17/9165379/Google-project-sunroof-solar-panels-map

Solar credits to HOs will not last long enough to pay off the refi to buy those panels.

.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

consumer choice are siding with a utility monopoly that is determined to drive competitors out of business,” said Barry Goldwater Jr., chairman of a pro-solar groups called Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed or TUSK.

The problem is that A - they are right that the grid will cost more if less people are on it. B - The opposition is right that true "freedom" means homeowners should be able to go "off the grid". That's a Catch 22.

But both sides are looking for government to help "them" at the expense of the other. There is something wrong with that picture