California Passes Solar Panel Mandate
Alex BekezaBusiness Member
Lender · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Investor Property Loan5307 Reviews
California Passes Solar Panel Mandate
Most Popular Reply
@Nathan Gesner I just had to weigh in on your comment and so called "hard truths" which turn out to be entirely false. I've responded to each of your points respectfully because I've had a different experience with solar than what you describe.
1. The payback period for solar hasn't been 20 years in 20 years. In many areas such as California the current average payback period is 5-8 years on a cash purchase. A 20 year payback period like you describe is not impossible but it would be rare with today's prices. You'd have to drastically overpay or detail your panels with gold trim to have such a long payback period. The panels on my roof were paid off in less than a year. I bought them at wholesale price and installed them myself, so it depends on how good a deal you get, how good your roof orientation and pitch is, how many sunny days you get in your region, how good your local incentives are, how much local competition there is among solar installers, etc. However calculating payback periods is uncommon these days anyway as the cash purchaser is rare. Just like real estate most people finance their systems, so what matters is cash flow. Typically loan payments are less than a normal utility bill, so people with solar pay less per month for electricity than those without, that's why people do it, because they like saving money.
2. Solar is indeed "green energy". What you are referring to is called embodied energy or energy return on energy invested (EROI). It is easily calculated including resource extraction, manufacture, shipping, and installation. Solar panels take 1 to 4 years to offset their embodied energy with electricity production, depending on the brand. The standard warranty is 20-25 years, so they pay back the energy it takes to produce themselves several times over during just the warranty period, and average life expectancy is 30-50 years as evidenced by the panels produced in the 70's that are still making electricity today.
3. Yes there are tax subsidies for solar. Please find me a form of energy that is not subsidized. Nuclear for example is the most subsidized form of energy, it would not exist without government subsidy because nobody would insure a nuclear power plant. Tax dollars insure nuclear plants, clean up disasters and also store the waste indefinitely. 43% of coal is mined on public lands, then it is shipped on railways built with tax dollars and burned in power plants built with tax dollars. Oil would be insanely expensive today if not for the Intangible Drilling Cost tax deduction of 1916, the Oil Depletion Allowance Act of 1926, the Domestic Manufacturing Deduction of 2004, etc. Energy is about the farthest thing from a free market you'll ever find, so why single solar out for getting government support when all forms of energy do? Many conservatives and libertarians actually love solar, it's not just liberals who love saving money! In fact the Solar Investment Tax Credit, the 30% tax credit which is driving the growth of the solar market, is from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which if you recall was during the presidency of George W. Bush. That tax credit was recently extended by another Republican president.
4. Batteries are either a luxury add on for those who prefer a battery bank over a generator for backup power, or a necessary component for a backwoods cabin that is off the grid. 99% of modern solar electric systems don't even use batteries. They use what's called net metering which doesn't require batteries. As far as circuits burning out I'm not sure what you're referring to there, that's completely made up.
5. What panels use those hazardous materials? None that I've ever seen. Cadmium was used very briefly and on a small scale years ago but that type of panel is obsolete. Modern solar panels are made from silicon wafers. Silicon is the eight most common element in the universe. It is not hazardous and is easily recycled.
6. Every solar system I've worked on has produced more energy than forecasted. Somebody may have messed up an energy forecast at some point, but it is not standard industry practice or lawyers would really love solar. As far as birds burning up, that has happened in a few isolated incidents with concentrated solar farms in the Mojave desert, which is a completely different technology than rooftop solar. It's not a factor with the types of panels you find on residential rooftops like California now requires. Also birds get killed by semi-trucks every day but that doesn't mean we're going to halt the trucking industry does it?
There is a lot of bad/outdated information about solar out there, I didn't want it to be propagated here. I'm not sure I agree with California's mandate, and I'm not sure how it will be implemented when many homes aren't suitable for solar, however I hate to see solar categorized as liberal/bad technology when it's actually great technology that benefits everyone regardless of political affiliation.
122 Replies
- Russell, you have just again debunked the theory of forcing a product on people. Wealthy people are wealthy because they are smart about money. If the payoff of solar was that good then the wealthy people would be paying for them. It’s what I call not pencilling out. And we wouldn’t even be discussing whether or not this was a good idea if government didn’t get involved in the first place . . . just saying 🤷🏼♂️
@Russell Brazil If you guys are so rich, you should be able to afford a few fancy solar panels! Solar doesn't pencil out for everyone but increasingly for many people it does.
Actually, if you don't have any solar panels in your neighborhood it's possible that your HOA doesn't allow it. The California mandate is one thing, but the reality of the rest of the country is that it's more common for solar to be prohibited by utilities or HOA's than it is for them to be mandated. With this in mind, if you're on the side of property rights you might be more concerned with the many places that still have rules preventing individuals from doing what they want with their roof and making that investment if they want.
Even if your HOA allows solar, I would respectfully argue that your immediate neighborhood is not big enough to give insight into an actual market. Zoom out to an area large enough to support business competition such as Maryland statewide and the data tells us the market has dramatically increased solar capacity by an average of 95% year over year for the last 17 years running, including 20,000% growth from 2006-2011. That kind of growth, a market that literally doubles or triples itself every year, signifies a high demand market in my book. Many of those 10 of the 20 richest counties in America you speak of are over the border in Virginia, where solar is expected to triple in capacity in the next 5 years https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/a.... You can't tell me you're not in a high demand market for solar, or that consumers don't want it when the market is booming, excluding your small neighborhood apparently, which I'd be curious to know if your HOA actually prevents it.
Do you have any data supporting solar reducing property value? That would go in the face of an often referenced study the appraisal institute conducted by tracking actual sales data from which they calculated that homes with solar sell for an average premium of $15k. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/sola...
Think about it: assuming house A and house B are identical other than one has solar and one does not (and you can't even see the solar because the panels are black and blend in to the roof), if house A has $2k/yr. electric bill, and house B has $0/yr. electric bill plus earns the owner $200/yr. selling SREC's back to the utility, you're telling me you'd pick house A? Most people would pick the house that makes money over the house that costs money.
$10-11/month savings doesn't sound like a lot but when you calculate the IRR over 10 years including conservative rate increases the return is 10.3%.(https://solarpowerrocks.com/maryland/). In my book that's a great return for a zero risk investment that cost $0 out of pocket thanks to the low interest $0 down loan. As a real estate investor I love any time I can make an investment with 100% other peoples money, and profit $15k over 20years plus add an instant $15k value in my home, with $0 DOWN. Mind you these are Maryland numbers, CA numbers are much better, Maryland is a good market but it's ranked 13th in the country. You can say it's not a lot of money but for some people it is and it's money they wouldn't have otherwise had, which plenty of people like.
You state you're not for or against solar, so I wonder why you are making negative comments about solar that I don't believe can be supported with data such as consumers don't want it, solar reduces property values, or that it's not cost effective. In my experience it is actually a product that many people want, which has been proven to raise home value and is often cashflow positive day one with no out of pocket cost. The alternative (not going solar and continuing to pay your utility bill) provides nothing but a negative return. Makes sense to me and a lot of other people. Rich people mostly actually, historically, but even that's changing now. Thanks to reduced pricing and new financing options the market is finally opening up to people who aren't rich, but up until now solar has been a rich persons item so it's odd to hear you and @BJ Dante claim rich people don't want it or don't buy it, it's simply not true, trust me I would know I've been selling tons of solar to mostly rich people for 15 years. I've sat in some of the richest people out there's living rooms and after 5 minutes of looking into it they cut me a check, to them it's a no brainer.
You stated you don't think the savings are enough to move the needle but fact is, the needle is moving! The solar industry is growing 17 times faster than the US economy:
- Hey Steve. I for one honestly don’t care about solar one way or another. To be honest I think the technology is cool. I have a little Honda Insight that uses Honda’s IMA technology and because I hypermile (taught you a new term 😉) I was averaging 50mpg summer and 44mpg winter driving. I know the cost of replacing one of those batteries is a lot but the gas savings I was getting over a car that gets 30mpg over the life of one of those batteries more than covers for itself. However, again, this comes down to the original question. Why is government mandating this in CA or anywhere at all (I don’t know if this is the first case of this or not honestly)? You stated numbers about how the market has increased and more people are relying on solar because the the numbers work for them. Here’s my thing. It’s subsidized and I don’t for a second believe the $9,500 number they came up with even after subsidies. I’m not arguing the technologies cost beneifts,I’m arguing the fact that the government mandates its implementation, uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize it, then effectively lies about how much it will cost to justify their decision.
- Investor · Taylor Mill, KY · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 964 votes8y
@Alex Bekeza I think that is a great idea.
- Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes8y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Russell Brazil If you guys are so rich, you should be able to afford a few fancy solar panels! Solar doesn't pencil out for everyone but increasingly for many people it does.
Actually, if you don't have any solar panels in your neighborhood it's possible that your HOA doesn't allow it. The California mandate is one thing, but the reality of the rest of the country is that it's more common for solar to be prohibited by utilities or HOA's than it is for them to be mandated. With this in mind, if you're on the side of property rights you might be more concerned with the many places that still have rules preventing individuals from doing what they want with their roof and making that investment if they want.
Even if your HOA allows solar, I would respectfully argue that your immediate neighborhood is not big enough to give insight into an actual market. Zoom out to an area large enough to support business competition such as Maryland statewide and the data tells us the market has dramatically increased solar capacity by an average of 95% year over year for the last 17 years running, including 20,000% growth from 2006-2011. That kind of growth, a market that literally doubles or triples itself every year, signifies a high demand market in my book. Many of those 10 of the 20 richest counties in America you speak of are over the border in Virginia, where solar is expected to triple in capacity in the next 5 years https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/a.... You can't tell me you're not in a high demand market for solar, or that consumers don't want it when the market is booming, excluding your small neighborhood apparently, which I'd be curious to know if your HOA actually prevents it.
Do you have any data supporting solar reducing property value? That would go in the face of an often referenced study the appraisal institute conducted by tracking actual sales data from which they calculated that homes with solar sell for an average premium of $15k. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/realestate/sola...
Think about it: assuming house A and house B are identical other than one has solar and one does not (and you can't even see the solar because the panels are black and blend in to the roof), if house A has $2k/yr. electric bill, and house B has $0/yr. electric bill plus earns the owner $200/yr. selling SREC's back to the utility, you're telling me you'd pick house A? Most people would pick the house that makes money over the house that costs money.
$10-11/month savings doesn't sound like a lot but when you calculate the IRR over 10 years including conservative rate increases the return is 10.3%.(https://solarpowerrocks.com/maryland/). In my book that's a great return for a zero risk investment that cost $0 out of pocket thanks to the low interest $0 down loan. As a real estate investor I love any time I can make an investment with 100% other peoples money, and profit $15k over 20years plus add an instant $15k value in my home, with $0 DOWN. Mind you these are Maryland numbers, CA numbers are much better, Maryland is a good market but it's ranked 13th in the country. You can say it's not a lot of money but for some people it is and it's money they wouldn't have otherwise had, which plenty of people like.
You state you're not for or against solar, so I wonder why you are making negative comments about solar that I don't believe can be supported with data such as consumers don't want it, solar reduces property values, or that it's not cost effective. In my experience it is actually a product that many people want, which has been proven to raise home value and is often cashflow positive day one with no out of pocket cost. The alternative (not going solar and continuing to pay your utility bill) provides nothing but a negative return. Makes sense to me and a lot of other people. Rich people mostly actually, historically, but even that's changing now. Thanks to reduced pricing and new financing options the market is finally opening up to people who aren't rich, but up until now solar has been a rich persons item so it's odd to hear you and @BJ Dante claim rich people don't want it or don't buy it, it's simply not true, trust me I would know I've been selling tons of solar to mostly rich people for 15 years. I've sat in some of the richest people out there's living rooms and after 5 minutes of looking into it they cut me a check, to them it's a no brainer.
You stated you don't think the savings are enough to move the needle but fact is, the needle is moving! The solar industry is growing 17 times faster than the US economy:
HOAs can not ban solar in the state of Maryland.
I love how the solar people in other parts of the country always want to tell me, the expert in my market how Im wrong, and how all agents here are wrong. (Im merely a top 1% agent as are most of my colleagues I work with) There simply is no data source that tracks home prices in my market for solar verse non solar, yet all agents here agree (except the ones who receive solar referral fees, which will be illegal soon enough to do that withou disclosing) they reduce the value of the property. So you can quote a bunch of studies that say other wise, but as someone who deeply involved in our housing market, I can clearly state there is zero avenue currently that tracks the sales here. The only evidence will be based on anectdoal experiences of agents.
One issue we run into here is the need to qualify for the lease payments as part of the sale. That pushes the buyers price point down since they qualify for less. And the rebuttal is always that but but when you own them outright....but no one here simply owns them outright. The end up on median priced homes, in median income neighborhoods, and then those properties sell for $15k under the comps.
But it muat be some secret conspiracy I and other Realtors in my market have to stop the solar industry because we hate the planet
District Invest Group545 Reviews - Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes8y
And for what its worth....we lobbied for not allowing HOAs to ban solar, based on the same idea as I posted early in the thread...property rights and consumer choice.
But now I understand also your cult like adherence to solar....you work for the solar industry. Always question motives kids. I should know when someone has a cult like defense of any industry, that the industry in question is likely paying that persons bills.
District Invest Group545 Reviews @BJ Dante I actually agree with you more or less about the mandate, I think it was unnecessary seeing as most CA new homes already come with solar anyway, and the mandate may have negative repercussions in other markets. But a lot of points being made on here saying it’s not cost effective or people don’t want it or rich people don’t buy t because they’re too smart are simply not true, so I gotta call BS when I see it. As far as solar being subsidized, if you research energy it becomes apparent quickly that all forms of energy are subsidized. The great thing about solar is there is a clear roadmap to being competitive without subsidies. The tax credit is scheduled to ramp down in a few years when prices are expected to drop enough that the subsidy will no longer be needed. Do you know of any other form of energy that has a clear roadmap to not needing subsidies? Legacy forms of energy using fossil fuels will need increased government money to stay competitive over time, while solar will not, so if you really don’t like energy subsidies then I would think solar would be your thing. Also that $9500 number is just an example, every system is priced differently, some will be more than that some less. In California that’s an accurate number for an average sized system in new construction which is cheaper than a retrofit system. If you bother to calculate what the true cost of other forms of energy would be without being propped up by government, you will see that solar is cheap by comparison. And I’m not even suggesting to include external costs such as pollution and health issues related to burning fossil fuels, just the straight tax benefits. Energy has never been a fair playing field, it’s important to understand that.
@Russell Brazil there actually are hard numbers we can use instead of relying on the personal experience of a handful of realtors. The appraisal institute study used sales data from 20,000 homes including homes in Maryland and determined solar homes sell at a $15k premium, so that is what most people go by. I believe you that there are realtors out there who have been unable to sell solar homes at a premium, but sales data suggests the majority of realtors are selling solar homes for a premium. Personally I know one realtor who refuses to list homes with leased solar because of one bad experience she had (and I agree with you that leased solar can cause transactional problems). However I also know many other realtors who have had great success leveraging the selling points of solar. They have been able to achieve higher sales prices because of their understanding of how solar is an asset and their ability to manage the sale in such a way to achieve a higher sales price. The second category is the larger category in my experience and according to national sales data.
@Russell Brazil also thanks for lobbying to prevent HOA's from blocking solar. Historically there have been many more HOA policies, utility policies, and PUC determinations that have prohibited people from going solar than there have been policies supporting it. I'm not sure the CA mandate is something I can get behind even as a solar advocate, but it does signify the winds are changing in terms of solar policy.
- Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes8y
Lots of misinformation in many of these posts.
As full disclosure, I own a small (500kW), solar photovoltaic (SPV), utility-grade, ground mount (UGM) system in NC with 'sell-all' PPA. (Power purchase agreement with the local utility). I would hate to have someone tell me to put panels on my proposed NC SFR new-construction roof. For a less-than-subdivision development I plan to build, I plan to keep the foundation construction 'in-house' and plan a geothermal HVAC install with, potentially, a remote SPV ground mount system and power-wall equivalent. A roof mount mandate would screw me over. While I like the theory, I don't like the mandate.
But I guess if you only have a roof, you would go with a rooftopper. To those in BP Nation in CA, what percent of the roof in CA for new construction is required to face south? southest?? southwest?? To me ground mount systems make more sense all the way around and certainly improve margins, at least on my project. BTW, NC legislature outlawed in 2017 community solar projects for EMCs when provided by third parties. Talk about rigged...
A couple other quick facts... UGM systems have energy storage (e.g. batteries) in NC today. Probably true in CA too, but I don't know that market. I've been on site in NC with my 'competitor' (not really, we operate in a co-opetition type environment) and their 2015 permitted and 2017 deployed systems (on 8 solar farms in one NC county) rate shave and can/do address the 'duck curve' phenomonon. This is today. Actually 2017. Energy storage is cost effective today depending on your PPA*.
But one thing is certain. Those who believe the solar industry is a scam (doesn't perform, pollutes, more expensive, blah blah blah) will continue to believe so regardless of facts. This is evident in some of the posts...
*Notes: NC is going through a PPA rate collapse disorder which has infected virtually all of the state. Example: $55.60 to $33.10 avoided cost... and that my friends might signal the end of independent power producers like me. Thanks Duke/NCUC
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
HOAs cannot legally prevent any homeowner from going solar anywhere in the Country.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1598/text Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
My $0.02 and I am in the solar industry for full disclosure.
If there truly was a level playing field, solar and renewables would be winning hands down. Grid parity was reached 5 years ago nationally. Depending on sources of information, fossil fuels and energy derived from them receive at the very low end $1.5 trillion in subsidies annually to a high end of $5 trillion. That doesn't factor in the human cost of death and injury of men and women in uniform protecting fossil fuel supply, or death and injury from localized pollution and environmental damage.
When you factor those true costs in, solar and renewables win hands down. However, because of the non-level playing field, rebates and subsidies are in place to encourage adoption. One person's subsidy is another person's investment. If NASA had not paid extortionate amounts for the original microchips, we would not be on this forum now.
California making solar mandatory for new construction is a response to the obvious. We are as a species moving towards renewables. It makes sense for economic, employment, manufacturing cost, environmental and national security reasons. When the World's 5th largest economy does this, other States and countries will follow. It is an inevitable journey to renewables no matter what we think or how much we really "dig" coal.
So what is the impact? Well it will increase CA's solar adoption at an accelerated pace. Currently at around 7.6% adoption, that will quickly hit 10% which history shows is a number that spurs mass adoption. For the homeowners "forced" to buy solar with a new home, they pay up front to save many fold over the years from reduced or eliminated utility bills. For existing homeowners, they will need to make a decision whether or not to bring their properties in line with new construction to compete on resale price. It is likely that many will, especially as rebates and net metering mean there is no out of pocket to do so (in most cases). Fannie Mae allows a full appraisal value of an owned (but not leased) solar system.
However! "Mandatory" and "Incentive" do not work together - no one pays us to wear seatbelts. I think this measure - especially as it moves across the US - will lead to an accelerated decrease in the Federal tax credit - currently 30%. Also as benchmarks are reached in terms of adoption, utilities can renegotiate net-metering rates to pay less for the excess produced by a solar system.In short then, the conditions to go solar now are certainly as good as they are ever going to be. It will be "good" in future, but I believe increasingly not as good as now.
In California and I believe every State, there are laws in place regarding the efficiency of new construction - insulation, double glazed windows etc. They are paid for up front by the homeowner who then benefits from reduced utility bills. This mandate for solar on new construction is no different to that, other than it is a true investment in owning your own power rather than renting it from a "public" utility.The main down side of this increase in renewables is the "duck curve". This is the upsurge in power required when solar is not operating after dark. In order to meet that demand the utilities have to keep powerplants running to ramp them up. They cannot just switch them on, so they bear a cost in over-production. The solution to this is in storage. That is the weak link in renewables now. True daily use batteries for economic home use are a year or two away from mainstream. For utility scale, even further. Investment (subsidy) would accelerate this technology and manufacturing to make storage economical. It's happening in the private sector, but a NASA type investment as happened in computing would be awesome.
As far as "Govt telling us what to do", well I've been in LA for 25 years. Anyone that has been here for any length of time will tell you about the massive positive impact of clean air legislation. Sometimes Govt involvement makes sense and I think we'll look back on the CA solar mandate as one of those times. The fact that major manufacturers like Volvo are eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles is a great indication also of where CA and the rest of the World is heading in that regard.No solar isn't close to grid parity. I am so sick and tired of political propaganda hiding behind 0 fact based analyiss. For grid parity, you need to have power in the dark, rainy days and cloudy days etc.
To do that you need load following 24x7, and that means you have to have dispatchable backup power supplies. Nuclear doesn't work because it has to be operated at full capacity and has almost no ability to follow a load. Coal can be spun up and down between about 50-80 or 90% of capacity in a reasonably short time, but they can take 6-10 hours or more to start up when shut down. natural gas units can move up or down fairly quickly, and in reality that is what you would be using as backup and off peak power. (along with hydro, but hydro has significant constraints)
During the day when all of those solar panels are producing power, who is paying for the unused transmission, distribution, switchgear, metering, line crews and spinning reserves on the utility side. That's right the home owner with a solar unit on their roof.
When people say solar is close to grid parity, what they mean is solar at 100% of capacity in the middle of the day. They forget that there is a whole lot more to "parity" than just plopping a solar unit on your roof.
And we aren't even talking about the potential pitfalls of what could happen to the grid stability. You have to balance VAR power to actually be able to move power into and around a grid. The additional solar units might just make it difficult if not impossible to sufficiently power different part of the grid, and that in itself might require additional transmission, distribution or even generating assets be built.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
@Bart H.
As addressed in the original post, the main issue with the expansion of solar and renewables is in the "duck curve" of over production during the daylight hours expanding the gap between day production and night demand. That issue requires advances in storage technology and manufacturing. Both are coming, investment (subsidy) would enable that advance to be more rapid.
I also dislike political points made on zero factual analysis. Defense of nuclear and fossil fuel derived power is invariably made without any account of the burden of cost overruns, security and clean up to future generations. Also without any regard to the actual subsidies both receive in the present.Nuclear example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/03/hinkley-nuclear-costs-climb-almost-20bn-start-delayed/
Fossil fuel subsidies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
Adding in the obvious economics of commodities v technologies, solar, hydro, wind and other renewables are the only sensible choice economically. China is adopting solar at "China pace". Why? Well air quality is one obvious answer to attract investment, but also manufacturing costs will be driven down with renewables. I believe this is also a strong motivator for mandatory solar in the world's 5th largest economy - we have to compete globally.
The largest solar projects in the World outside China are in the Gulf states.
As far as grid stability goes. We have three main grids in the entire USA. The national security risk of that archaic model is incredible. Take one out and what would happen? Another massive need for investment in storage tech is so that home, electric vehicles as well as power plants can be used as "micro grids". The ability to stabilise power in a community through linked batteries will mitigate the incredible risk we currently tolerate.
Again, the point of the original post is that California is simply accepting the inevitable and controlling its destiny in that reality. All debate on the "politics" of that `is moot. Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
@Bart H.
As addressed in the original post, the main issue with the expansion of solar and renewables is in the "duck curve" of over production during the daylight hours expanding the gap between day production and night demand. That issue requires advances in storage technology and manufacturing. Both are coming, investment (subsidy) would enable that advance to be more rapid.
I also dislike political points made on zero factual analysis. Defense of nuclear and fossil fuel derived power is invariably made without any account of the burden of cost overruns, security and clean up to future generations. Also without any regard to the actual subsidies both receive in the present.Nuclear example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/03/hinkley-nuclear-costs-climb-almost-20bn-start-delayed/
Fossil fuel subsidies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
Adding in the obvious economics of commodities v technologies, solar, hydro, wind and other renewables are the only sensible choice economically. China is adopting solar at "China pace". Why? Well air quality is one obvious answer to attract investment, but also manufacturing costs will be driven down with renewables. I believe this is also a strong motivator for mandatory solar in the world's 5th largest economy - we have to compete globally.
The largest solar projects in the World outside China are in the Gulf states.
As far as grid stability goes. We have three main grids in the entire USA. The national security risk of that archaic model is incredible. Take one out and what would happen? Another massive need for investment in storage tech is so that home, electric vehicles as well as power plants can be used as "micro grids". The ability to stabilise power in a community through linked batteries will mitigate the incredible risk we currently tolerate.
Again, the point of the original post is that California is simply accepting the inevitable and controlling its destiny in that reality. All debate on the "politics" of that `is moot.You have more than 3 "main grids". in the US. There are 8 NERC regions in the U.S. Technically all of the grid is interconnected, although ERCOT (TEXAS), which runs out of phase with the rest of the country has a couple of substations that can pass a nominal amount power between them.
Several of the other regions are interconnected, but for the most part the regions act separately because of geography and power flow.
If you dont know or understand that basic fact, its a little difficult to explain to you why a large portion of your main points are incorrect.
If we want to discuss things like China's renewable efforts, lets also talk about the fact they have been the largest builder of coal fired power plants. They dwarf US coal fired units. I know there have been some changes, but China essentially has as many coal fired power plants under construction as we have in total.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/flurry-of-coal-...As far as storage goes, there has been hundreds of billions of incentives for utilities and others to find high tech storage options. There have been hundreds of billions in opportunity for decades if you can create efficient storage to smooth out off peak and on peak purchases.
Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist. While the technology is getting a LOT better, it still has a long ways to go, and there are constraints to size and efficiencies dictated by physics. Just the amount of Lithium, or lead or what ever metal ends up being used in the batteries for grid storage becomes more or less prohibitive.
Will there be some advances? yes, it might become a semi common thing to have a little in house storage, but anyone who has bought a battery backup system for their computer can tell you how expensive it is. And frankly, its a lot cheaper, and probably more environmentally friendly to just support it with the grid.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
"There are three main grids" - Eastern, Western and Texas interconnections. In patronising my "lack of understanding" could you also then define the percentage of US population served by those three? Do you disagree that a hostile act to any of those three would be anything other than catastrophic?
Splitting the atom, a round trip to the moon among other less headline accomplishments were all unicorns until there was will, and investment was made.
The path to effective storage is well underway. Probably a combination of supercapacitors with existing battery technology will be the next leap. Progress would be quicker if there was a mandate to achieve efficiency targets with funding. Sadly funding and will is being used to lie to people in Appalachia and strip away environmental protection.The private sector is leading the "charge". I believe that TESLA and others true "play" is to provide grid management software. If you have millions of interconnected homes and vehicles - all of which are equipped with sensors now - in combination with utility scale facilities, you massively reduce grid vulnerability. Damage to one area will not impact an entire region.
"anyone who had bought a battery backup for their computer can tell you how expensive it is". Sure. How about the computer itself? How about 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Perhaps Google "Moore's Law". Technology will always out perform commodities economically."Prices of photovoltaic systems have been divided by three in six years", "China will produce 37% of global photovoltaic energy by 2050"
Again, the point is that we are on an inevitable journey to renewable energy. The only questions are how much we participate, control the speed of the journey, or lead the way. California is answering that question with the mandate.
- Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes8y
Regarding energy storage... "Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist..." Not true, at least in small (500kw) utility systems. I've seen them and talked to utilities where they are deployed (in 2017). They work. Not sure why you don't want to accept that. All our plans have energy storage pads in them but with our PPAs the price (energy storage hardware) isn't quite there yet. We have a 3 year window to install storage per our IA, so we may down the road...
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
"There are three main grids" - Eastern, Western and Texas interconnections. In patronising my "lack of understanding" could you also then define the percentage of US population served by those three? Do you disagree that a hostile act to any of those three would be anything other than catastrophic?
Splitting the atom, a round trip to the moon among other less headline accomplishments were all unicorns until there was will, and investment was made.
The path to effective storage is well underway. Probably a combination of supercapacitors with existing battery technology will be the next leap. Progress would be quicker if there was a mandate to achieve efficiency targets with funding. Sadly funding and will is being used to lie to people in Appalachia and strip away environmental protection.The private sector is leading the "charge". I believe that TESLA and others true "play" is to provide grid management software. If you have millions of interconnected homes and vehicles - all of which are equipped with sensors now - in combination with utility scale facilities, you massively reduce grid vulnerability. Damage to one area will not impact an entire region.
"anyone who had bought a battery backup for their computer can tell you how expensive it is". Sure. How about the computer itself? How about 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Perhaps Google "Moore's Law". Technology will always out perform commodities economically."Prices of photovoltaic systems have been divided by three in six years", "China will produce 37% of global photovoltaic energy by 2050"
Again, the point is that we are on an inevitable journey to renewable energy. The only questions are how much we participate, control the speed of the journey, or lead the way. California is answering that question with the mandate.
NO, there are not "3 main grids". You have repeated it twice now, and Its FLAT OUT WRONG. Both in structure AND in practice. There are a lot more NERC regions for a reason. If I am in Miami Florida, or even Atlanta, and there is a blackout, its not going to impact in any shape way or form the lights in Gary Indiana. If I have extra power to sell in Portage Indiana, its not getting to Charleston South Carolina. If I have surplus power in Phoenix Arizona, its not getting to a house in San Fran.
Of course we need to improve the cyber security of our grid. But that is a completely separate topic, and has almost no connection to the numbers of grids, or for that matter whether we have solar panels on the tops of houses.
When you talk about super capacitors, and batteries. Its like saying an ant is going to lift a car. The orders of magnitude are so far off of the realities of the laws of physics. We know as an example what the theoretical maximum for the capacity of a battery.
Look, maybe I should give you a bit about my background. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis in thermodynamics and heat transfer from one of the top half dozen engineering schools in the country. I have 10+ years of experience in operations, energy trading, strategic planning and long term forecasting for one of the largest utilities in the country. And have experience as a consultant setting up energy trading systems for some of the largest energy companies in the country.
While I am no longer in the business, I follow the trends fairly closely.
Yes there is a clear trend to renewables, and green energy. All great trends. But this virtue signaling from California legislation with little to no thought on what this does for affordable housing, industry, grid stability and general costs is just beyond ludicrous.
You want to see the California economy stagnate, here it goes.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
"Lloyd’s of London, an insurance underwriter, developed a plausible scenario for an attack on the Eastern Interconnection—one of the two major electrical grids in the continental United States—which services roughly half the country. The hypothetical attack targeted power generators to cause a blackout covering fifteen states and the District of Columbia, leaving ninety-three million people without power. Other experts have concluded that an attack on the system for transmitting power from generation to end consumers would have devastating consequences."
https://www.cfr.org/report/cyberattack-us-power-grid
"Of course we need to improve the cyber security of our grid. But that is a completely separate topic, and has almost no connection to the numbers of grids, or for that matter whether we have solar panels on the tops of houses."
Solar panels, no. Domestic storage and electric vehicles yes. A decentralized grid is absolutely more secure than the current grid.
In my professional capacity we already furnish systems with batteries that equip homes to do precisely what is required for decentralized grid management. The issues are solely economic. One way or another they will be resolved whether it is driven by investment or subsidy or the economic reality of increased costs of commodity-based power production.
Also in my professional capacity I am fortunate to work with individuals such as a Read Admiral who was responsible for the Pacific Fleet. His opinion is that our dependency on fossil fuels is the single greatest threat to national security.
Look, we can debate back and forth. I respect your opinion but disagree with it. Again that doesn't matter. California has taken a lead in an inevitable journey. Time will tell regarding the economics of that and it will certainly depend on whether or not opponents are willing to include true costs of the current system.
An example of the hidden figures? Well San Onofre should not only scare the pants out of West Coast residents, but the true costs of this abject disgrace should be known to inform. That is of course unless people see no issues in materials so radioactive they need to be secured for centuries currently being in canisters that are known to have defects hundreds of years shy of their designed life, but cannot be inspected because they are so radioactive. Those canisters being stored at sea level! I guess it could be worse, SoCal could be in an earthquake and tsunami zone and the ocean level could be rising!http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stranded-nuclear-waste-20170702-htmlstory.html
The whole notion of economic stagnation is simply based on our current plan to pay for archaic systems on credit cards that our children and their future generations will pick up the tab for. Paying off the credit cards with mandatory movement to renewable energy might be slightly painful now but save fortunes long-term.
Storage technology, decentralized grids, the internet of things are currently reality but not yet economic solutions. The same could be said of solar panels 60 years ago or mobile phones 25 years ago or the internet 20 years ago.
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8yAndrew Smith assuming that the $10,000 per home cost is correct you are arguing that solar panels are so important that housing development that can't afford it shouldn't be allowed to be built. There is a developer here in LA that buys SFRs for $350,000 and puts up six unit projects. You are arguing that the land owner should be willing to sell his property for $290,000 and that if he is not the development shouldn't happen. Is that what you are saying?
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Andrew Smith assuming that the $10,000 per home cost is correct you are arguing that solar panels are so important that housing development that can't afford it shouldn't be allowed to be built.
There is a developer here in LA that buys SFRs for $350,000 and puts up six unit projects. You are arguing that the land owner should be willing to sell his property for $290,000 and that if he is not the development shouldn't happen.
Is that what you are saying?
I'm not a lawmaker so not saying anything regarding that. Not sure where that came from. The $9500 figure is put out as an average cost of a system. Plainly it will be different for every property. Perhaps the unit you described could have a community solar project to service all of them. That would likely be less cost than each individual property depending on how they're built.
Are you saying the developer should be able to ignore all requirements - environmental, health and safety etc in order to construct and sell cheap property? Let the property purchasers bear the cost of lack of insulation, double glazing etc long term so they can buy it for a few bucks a month less at the purchase and ensure the developer gets paid? - Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8y
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Are you saying the developer should be able to ignore all requirements - environmental, health and safety etc in order to construct and sell cheap property? Let the property purchasers bear the cost of lack of insulation, double glazing etc long term so they can buy it for a few bucks a month less at the purchase and ensure the developer gets paid?
No, I'm not saying that, and I would appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.
If solar is so important to you then why do you want land sellers to pay for it, and why are you willing to cause a housing shortage over it when the residual land value is lower than the existing use of the land.
Do you understand what that means? - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Equally I didn't and don't like words being put in mine. I didn't develop the mandate. I am not a lawmaker. The truth is that like it or not the mandate is a response to the inevitable.
How have other directives impacted residual land value appraisals? If you are opposed to this mandate are you opposed to others that have raised construction costs or is it limited to solar?
I don't think the mandate is the perfect solution for the environment or housing. I think a reappraisal of zoning restrictions would have a much more beneficial impact for low-cost housing and the shortage overall than reversing this mandate. Also I believe a carbon tax would be a far better driver of solar adoption. Neither are likely to be expedited politically so the mandate represents the "best available" option.In short, therefore all I am actually saying is that the mandate is a response to the inevitable as I said in the very first post.
Originally posted by @Chris Martin:
Regarding energy storage... "Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist..." Not true, at least in small (500kw) utility systems. I've seen them and talked to utilities where they are deployed (in 2017). They work. Not sure why you don't want to accept that. All our plans have energy storage pads in them but with our PPAs the price (energy storage hardware) isn't quite there yet. We have a 3 year window to install storage per our IA, so we may down the road...
Originally posted by @Chris Martin:
Regarding energy storage... "Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist..." Not true, at least in small (500kw) utility systems. I've seen them and talked to utilities where they are deployed (in 2017). They work. Not sure why you don't want to accept that. All our plans have energy storage pads in them but with our PPAs the price (energy storage hardware) isn't quite there yet. We have a 3 year window to install storage per our IA, so we may down the road...
Look I was a little vague in my statement, I apologize..
Yes there are some techniques being used in certain part of the grid that might use batteries for voltage support etc. Not much different than capacitors being used to mitigate reactive power issues.
But there is a VERY high cost in those applications. Now if you are a small rural town that has a a bunch of agricultural load in the fall at the end of a circuit 60 miles away, then yeah, you might find it cost effective to add some battery backup instead of running another circuit that gets used 3 months a year.
But you are a talking a whole another world with a region of thousands of MW's whose generation is solar and has enough capacity to get you thru several days with no sun.
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8y
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Equally I didn't and don't like words being put in mine. I didn't develop the mandate. I am not a lawmaker. The truth is that like it or not the mandate is a response to the inevitable.
How have other directives impacted residual land value appraisals? If you are opposed to this mandate are you opposed to others that have raised construction costs or is it limited to solar?
I don't think the mandate is the perfect solution for the environment or housing. I think a reappraisal of zoning restrictions would have a much more beneficial impact for low-cost housing and the shortage overall than reversing this mandate. Also I believe a carbon tax would be a far better driver of solar adoption. Neither are likely to be expedited politically so the mandate represents the "best available" option.In short, therefore all I am actually saying is that the mandate is a response to the inevitable as I said in the very first post.
It may be a response to the inevitable... but it is also a way to reduce housing production. California is basically saying that it would rather have less development and more solar panels...
If they decided that everyone had to add solar to their existing houses you'd have the opposite effect. That would really drag California into the future.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.