billvon 2,991 #26 June 23, 2009 >I thought you told me that you get to sell your exess juice at retail to >the power comany. Did I misunderstand you? Yes. My deal with SDG+E is that I can zero out the electric part of my bill; the remainder I donate to the utility. They get free power, I don't have to cycle batteries every night. Sounds like a win/win to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #27 June 23, 2009 Would you mind going into a little more detail? I have heard of people selling back power to the utilities but I have never really heard a first hand account and I think it would be interesting. Got a bunch of solor panels? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #28 June 23, 2009 Quote . . . utitity . . . I'm not sure what this word means, but I like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 June 23, 2009 Quote>I thought you told me that you get to sell your exess juice at retail to >the power comany. Did I misunderstand you? Yes. My deal with SDG+E is that I can zero out the electric part of my bill; the remainder I donate to the utility. They get free power, I don't have to cycle batteries every night. Sounds like a win/win to me. So, you dont sell exess back you just zero your bill. That I do not have a problem with if you as a generator are ok with that. Seems I did not understand correctly, sorry"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #30 June 23, 2009 >Would you mind going into a little more detail? Sure. I have three systems. One is the "real" system that puts out about 2kW (12kWhr/day here in San Diego.) Cost around $14,000; a little over half of that was paid for through the California buyback programs and another $2000 was covered by federal tax credits. So total cost was around $5000. The second system is 1.2kW and was put together from odds and ends of other systems. Cost around $5000. A third system is a small solar system (300 watts) with battery backup for blackouts. Since we never have blackouts here it hasn't been used much. To get the net metering agreement you have to get two sets of inspections, meet a bunch of requirements (external lockable disconnect, placards etc.) Once that's in place, they add up your power usage over the course of the year, and if it's negative (i.e. you generated more than you use) then you don't pay anything for power. If it's not negative then you pay the balance. I generate about 30% more than I use, so I don't pay anything. (Other than a service fee, about $40 a year.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 June 23, 2009 QuoteWould you mind going into a little more detail? I have heard of people selling back power to the utilities but I have never really heard a first hand account and I think it would be interesting. Got a bunch of solor panels? I think he has both wind and solar. The utility I work for specs out a meter for small wind generators. They, like bill, can zero out the meter but we will pay (at our cost to generate rate) back to the person generating if they have exess and put it back on the grid. As I understand it (and I know little about the units themselves) they , the small wind generators, cost about 100k to install. The generator manufacturer will finance for 20 years"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 June 23, 2009 Quote>Would you mind going into a little more detail? Sure. I have three systems. One is the "real" system that puts out about 2kW (12kWhr/day here in San Diego.) Cost around $14,000; a little over half of that was paid for through the California buyback programs and another $2000 was covered by federal tax credits. So total cost was around $5000. The second system is 1.2kW and was put together from odds and ends of other systems. Cost around $5000. A third system is a small solar system (300 watts) with battery backup for blackouts. Since we never have blackouts here it hasn't been used much. To get the net metering agreement you have to get two sets of inspections, meet a bunch of requirements (external lockable disconnect, placards etc.) Once that's in place, they add up your power usage over the course of the year, and if it's negative (i.e. you generated more than you use) then you don't pay anything for power. If it's not negative then you pay the balance. I generate about 30% more than I use, so I don't pay anything. (Other than a service fee, about $40 a year.) Bill, when we went around on this the first time I was under the impression that exess was sold at "retail" rates. And, not speaking to the government programs, that is where my heartburn came from. In your case I think you should get paid for the juice you put on the grid but payment should be at the same rate it costs the company to generate it Sorry I made a bad assumption. This simple fact makes a big difference"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #33 June 23, 2009 NIMBY? maybe. But I DON'T want one in my back yard - and I'll be objecting and demonstrating the big one that they plan to build near us. If you're happy to have one built near you, fine know yourself out. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #34 June 23, 2009 So how long have you had all that stuff and has it paid for itself yet? I could pay my power bill for a long time with all that cash and I am thinking that your pay back time might be longer than the life of the equipment. Just curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #35 June 23, 2009 Quote NIMBY? maybe. But I DON'T want one in my back yard - and I'll be objecting and demonstrating the big one that they plan to build near us. If you're happy to have one built near you, fine know yourself out. i live in the fens and they're going up all over the place - the kids love em stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 June 23, 2009 Thankfully the 16, 100!!!! metre high ones along the A14 have been rejected - phew. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #37 June 23, 2009 Quote Live closer to where you work and purchase the things you need. Support nuclear energy for electricity. ding ding ding!!!-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #38 June 23, 2009 >Bill, when we went around on this the first time I was under >the impression that exess was sold at "retail" rates. Some programs do that. Colorado pays back at incremental rate. That means that if you produce a little more than you use, you get a very low return (a few cents per kwhr.) If you produce a lot more you get more and more $ per kwhr. This is equivalent to the utility's rate structure; many utilities charge on a sliding scale to effectively benefit people who conserve power. However, even this program has a monthly fee to pay for utility overhead. New Jersey pays back at avoided cost, which is the cost of producing the power. It starts out at a similar level to Colorado's but never increases as you produce more. Kansas pays back at 150% of avoided cost, which is still not as high as retail. Minnesota, DC, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada and New Hampshire pays back at straight retail rates. AFAIK all charge a monthly fee (a few $$) for overhead as well. Many other states (like California) do not pay back at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #39 June 23, 2009 QuoteSo how long have you had all that stuff and has it paid for itself yet? I could pay my power bill for a long time with all that cash and I am thinking that your pay back time might be longer than the life of the equipment. Just curious. so $10K total (ignoring the solar system that doesn't have the price listed, nor seems to be used) for me is about 4 years worth of electricity bills. That's a reasonable payback time. It's been a few years since I looked into lifetime of solar panels, but back then it was 7-10 years, so a 4-year ROI is reasonable if you have the upfront cash to do it. Now, lifetime is probably more like 10-15yr (totally guessing) and without tax credits and buyback, that's about an 8yr ROI. again.... considering the longer lifetime, reasonable if I had the cash upfront.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #40 June 23, 2009 >So how long have you had all that stuff and has it paid for itself yet? About 5 years. Going by the average rate I used to pay (12 cents a kwhr) the system will pay for itself in just under 10 years. (.12*12*365=$525 a year in savings.) However, the complication is that before I put in the system I spent about $1000 on a new refrig, fluorescent lights, better washing machine, motor controllers etc to bring down my power usage; it costs $1 to save the power you can generate with $5 worth of solar, so that's an important first step. Once I did that my power cost dropped to an average of about 5 cents/kwhr, which is a 23ish year payback. Now the rate structure has changed even more dramatically. Baseline power is billed at 1.6 cents/kwhr, power over 200% of baseline is 23 cents/kwhr. A typical US home uses roughly 240% of baseline. So out here in San Diego, at least, you are far better off spending money on conservation than on solar power systems. If you can get your usage down to 10kwhr/day (not hard if you don't use A/C; we use around 6-8) then your power costs go _way_ down. OTOH if you're going to use more power than baseline (i.e. you have a pool or central A/C) payback times for solar are _very_ short. At 400% baseline (not unusual for a pool+AC) payback times are around 6 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 June 23, 2009 Quote>Would you mind going into a little more detail? Sure. I have three systems. One is the "real" system that puts out about 2kW (12kWhr/day here in San Diego.) Cost around $14,000; a little over half of that was paid for through the California buyback programs and another $2000 was covered by federal tax credits. So total cost was around $5000. The second system is 1.2kW and was put together from odds and ends of other systems. Cost around $5000. A third system is a small solar system (300 watts) with battery backup for blackouts. Since we never have blackouts here it hasn't been used much. To get the net metering agreement you have to get two sets of inspections, meet a bunch of requirements (external lockable disconnect, placards etc.) Once that's in place, they add up your power usage over the course of the year, and if it's negative (i.e. you generated more than you use) then you don't pay anything for power. If it's not negative then you pay the balance. I generate about 30% more than I use, so I don't pay anything. (Other than a service fee, about $40 a year.) The retail rate ones are the ones that allow free usage of the power compaies poles and wire. The ovided cost structure is ok but it needs to be high enough that the producers gets something for his/her investment. CA suprises me but, if you have it dialed in as good as you seem to it is not a bad deal"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #42 June 23, 2009 >The retail rate ones are the ones that allow free usage of the >power compaies poles and wire. Well, not quite free; you still have to pay a service fee in all the programs I've seen. Most utilities have this even if they do not offer net metering - there's a daily fee for connection even if you use no power at all. I would assume that that's there to cover their maintenance costs on the distribution system. On the consumer side, they get the benefit of utility power for nights, cloudy days etc. On the utility side, they get some (small) monthly payment, and have less need to build new power poles/wiring/power plants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #43 June 23, 2009 Quote>The retail rate ones are the ones that allow free usage of the >power compaies poles and wire. Well, not quite free; you still have to pay a service fee in all the programs I've seen. Most utilities have this even if they do not offer net metering - there's a daily fee for connection even if you use no power at all. I would assume that that's there to cover their maintenance costs on the distribution system. On the consumer side, they get the benefit of utility power for nights, cloudy days etc. On the utility side, they get some (small) monthly payment, and have less need to build new power poles/wiring/power plants. Those service fees mostly cover the administrative costs to maintain the customer account (at least here) the rest of the over heads are ususlly set in the tarrif. (the service fees are too for that matter) As for building new plant and propery, the utilities go to the IUB here in IA and a new rate case it set to cover the cost and capital return on those investments. The profit from earlier rate cases will be used to keep the cost of borrowing money down. And power companies do not want to NOT build power plants as the return on those investments is how they make money. One needs to remember this is a regulated industry for the most part. Makes for some convoluted ways of setting rates and making money"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 June 23, 2009 Quote Take the coast of California for example. I can't in my wildest imagination believe that even California would put up with having the view of the coast screwed up with wind towers. We have a great wind farm on the road that leads from Palm Springs to Los Angeles and it's in a consistently windy area as well. Great location. But the article's idea that we'd somehow give up the coast line? Preposterous. Yes, we've seen that with the Kennedy's on the east coast. Green is great, unless it's blocking my view somehow. But give Californians a choice of wind farms or more oil platforms, and I wonder which they'll pick. Every little spill kills quite a few birds, along with sea life that we'd prefer to eat. And beach closures, which stop millions from seeing that view anyway. Alternatively, we could give Angelenos a choice of wind mills or giving up their single occupant SUVs in the rough urban jungle that is the 405. It might be hard to survive without 4wd in all that rain, but sacrifices will need to be made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #45 June 23, 2009 as for the bird killing thing: couldn't we come up with a way to stop that? Put little noise makers or lights or something on the blades to scare the birds away from getting too close? it doesn't seem like a problem we couldn't solve. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #46 June 23, 2009 > couldn't we come up with a way to stop that? Evolution. Easier and more reliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
makeithappen40 0 #47 June 23, 2009 I wonder. Yet I also wonder if that would really make the NIMBY folks even louder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 June 23, 2009 Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #49 June 23, 2009 NIMBY is such a shite argument, especially if you don't have the prospect of them stuffed in you 'back yard'..... now pass the C4 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #50 June 23, 2009 I bet we could too, but two birds per turbine per year is a small enough number that's it's not worth it, IMO. The bird thing is just another tiny point for the NIMBY crew to make noise about. Billvon- thanks for the info. Now if only more people were willing to front the cash, you could have a nice little side business Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
