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
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt? - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
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.I think that last sentence will manifest as a result. Existing homes will have to compete with new construction when selling. There is an "addictive" aspect of solar adoption through social proof too.
The new construction mandate means solar is being sold to captive buyers. That eliminates a lot of payment (cost) in the solar food chain. I won't financially benefit from the mandate directly as it will be sold direct through developers. Combine that with the cost efficiency of scale and the price of the solar installs will likely decrease significantly. The existing stock conversion is way more interesting to me even though price per watt will likely fall as a result of the mandate.As far as housing stock goes, "building up" may be promoted as a result of the mandate which is limited to three stories. Surely increased density would have more beneficial impact than any negative of the solar mandate?
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
"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.
I repeat for the 3rd time in this thread, there are more than 3 reliability regions in this country. You can keep repeating it but it is factually incorrect.
There have been at least two very large blackouts in the last 50 years that stand out, both hitting NYC. The most recent that stands out was in 2003 and was due to an issue in Ohio, that did trigger a blackout that hit new York city which A) sits on an ocean, b) has a very high load c) has much of its power supplies being imported from pretty large distances. And you know what that blackout didnt get past the AEP/NIsource/ComEd interconnects in northern Indiana.
When California was going thru a boatload of blackouts, the surrounding states werent being affected.
There are more than 3 reliability regions, and there are more than 3 for a reason. Because they have different characteristics from each other. Its very tough to take you serious when you keep repeating something that is just wrong.
- 8yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?kind of went over my head.. but I see power industry facing what the baby bells faced.. they have to pay for and maintain all these phone lines.. when 90% of the country uses cell phones.. lots of wasted money on old tech.
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8y
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
1. Existing homes will have to compete with new construction when selling.
2. The new construction mandate means solar is being sold to captive buyers. That eliminates a lot of payment (cost) in the solar food chain.3. As far as housing stock goes, "building up" may be promoted as a result of the mandate which is limited to three stories. Surely increased density would have more beneficial impact than any negative of the solar mandate?
1. Not really. Look at it this way. Here in Los Angeles a single family home at 1,500 SF will pay $60,000 in impact fees and more in code compliance costs. An existing house doesn't have that burden. At the same time, a new home is competing for land with existing homes. If the new home can't be built cheaply enough, it won't get built... or, it can only be built as a high end luxury product.
2. The cost is about $10,000/unit. Probably a bit less for small apartments. The media is reporting that it costs $40/mo. Theoretically this will be matched by a decrease in land prices. Except that doesn't happen when the land already has a house in it. If you really wanted cheap PV you'd do utility grade installations, not piecemeal rooftop installs.
3. When you put that fourth floor on you need two stairwells, a corridor, and an elevator, usually on top of a concrete podium. Your PSF rents have increase a great deal when you do that.
Basically this is the state of California saying that they place greenwashing over affordable housing production. Which is nothing new here.
People will continue to live in 400 SF apartments with no insulation and 60% efficient gas wall heaters with window shakers for cooling, and driving to work in crushing traffic, which is how millions of Californians live. Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?No, because utilities have EVERY incentive to get involved in solar, renewables and storage.
Utilities get a return on investment that they can get into ratebase. They LOVE adding infrastructure into the ratebase. If they can install a trillion dollars of solar panels, batteries etc and get it past the Utility commission to get a return, they will do it.
In fact because of how they can lever up their balance sheets, utilities are the ideal folks to do solar/wind investments, they can make large investments, have the project management and can make long term investments in a way no one else can.
What happens is the cost becomes prohibitive, and the single mother of two kids cant pay her light bill, or pays her light bill and cant pay her rent.
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?kind of went over my head.. but I see power industry facing what the baby bells faced.. they have to pay for and maintain all these phone lines.. when 90% of the country uses cell phones.. lots of wasted money on old tech.
Jay, there are a lot more moving parts to an electric grid. things like voltage support, load following, spinning reserves, reactive power etc. All of those will be used by these folks who are putting solar panels on their buildings. And people on this thread are drastically underestimating the cost , space requirements (and inefficiencies) of putting energy into storage and then using it at a different time of day.
- 8yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?kind of went over my head.. but I see power industry facing what the baby bells faced.. they have to pay for and maintain all these phone lines.. when 90% of the country uses cell phones.. lots of wasted money on old tech.
Jay, there are a lot more moving parts to an electric grid. things like voltage support, load following, spinning reserves, reactive power etc. All of those will be used by these folks who are putting solar panels on their buildings. And people on this thread are drastically underestimating the cost , space requirements (and inefficiencies) of putting energy into storage and then using it at a different time of day.
Ya I don't know anything about it other than I read about Tesla power wall because I own a few Tesla's ... I am thinking those are more short term storage and I know those are not cheap.. but I think what Tesla is trying to do and correct me if I am wrong.. is you can have a Tesla solar roof then buy their power wall system and be self sufficient and off the grid ???? and you can charge your cars with it..
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
"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.
I repeat for the 3rd time in this thread, there are more than 3 reliability regions in this country. You can keep repeating it but it is factually incorrect.
There have been at least two very large blackouts in the last 50 years that stand out, both hitting NYC. The most recent that stands out was in 2003 and was due to an issue in Ohio, that did trigger a blackout that hit new York city which A) sits on an ocean, b) has a very high load c) has much of its power supplies being imported from pretty large distances. And you know what that blackout didnt get past the AEP/NIsource/ComEd interconnects in northern Indiana.
When California was going thru a boatload of blackouts, the surrounding states werent being affected.
There are more than 3 reliability regions, and there are more than 3 for a reason. Because they have different characteristics from each other. Its very tough to take you serious when you keep repeating something that is just wrong.
So the Lloyds scenario in the Eastern region is just wrong then? What did they err on?
I believe the 2003 outage you mentioned was somewhere around 10 States impacted, hundreds of deaths, 50 million plus people affected. It impacted water supply, fuel supply, medical facilities. That was without it being a deliberate attack. Most people would consider that type of centralized grid to be vulnerable - however many regions there are.
I am aware there are more than three regions. The three described impact the greatest number of inhabitants. Rather than debating three versus eight, do you concur or disagree that a decentralized grid system of micro-production and storage through household systems including storage in EVs would reduce the vulnerability for millions of people to an event such as a localised EMP device or hack, versus a centralised grid servicing millions
It's my belief that the huge push towards EVs, autonomous vehicles and in part the progress in PV solar and storage is all interconnected to a desire at a corporate level to develop software and systems that will run "Grid 2.0". Interconnected autonomous micro production and storage plants (homes and EVs in conjunction with utilities). - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes8y
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Bart H.:
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.
Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?
I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?No, because utilities have EVERY incentive to get involved in solar, renewables and storage.
Utilities get a return on investment that they can get into ratebase. They LOVE adding infrastructure into the ratebase. If they can install a trillion dollars of solar panels, batteries etc and get it past the Utility commission to get a return, they will do it.
In fact because of how they can lever up their balance sheets, utilities are the ideal folks to do solar/wind investments, they can make large investments, have the project management and can make long term investments in a way no one else can.
What happens is the cost becomes prohibitive, and the single mother of two kids cant pay her light bill, or pays her light bill and cant pay her rent.
Your last sentence should inspire every homeowner who does not want to be dictated to to go solar themselves. It would seem that economics of losing customers to that because their costs are increasing due to "duck curves", they'll be able to secure funding for storage infrastructure and be rewarded for doing so. There's no incentive for them to do that as a monopoly with a captive audience when it's cheaper for them to "leave the light on" by keeping power plants running rather than storing excess renewable production.
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.
That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...
- 8yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.
That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...
whats UPS ??? I started my career selling ranch land and land to weed growers in the Emerald triangle in the late 70s alternate energy abounded then I fully understand how you can live off the grid.. My brother did it in Lake county for a decade then I sold it to someone else who still lives there off the grid and that was 30 some years ago..
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes8y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.
That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...
whats UPS ??? I started my career selling ranch land and land to weed growers in the Emerald triangle in the late 70s alternate energy abounded then I fully understand how you can live off the grid.. My brother did it in Lake county for a decade then I sold it to someone else who still lives there off the grid and that was 30 some years ago..
A UPS is a battery that is designed to provide uninterrupted power for a limited period of time to keep electronics functioning properly.
- 8yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
If you think of a power wall as a UPS for the house you can't go wrong.
That said, propane is the dirty secret of off grid homes...
whats UPS ??? I started my career selling ranch land and land to weed growers in the Emerald triangle in the late 70s alternate energy abounded then I fully understand how you can live off the grid.. My brother did it in Lake county for a decade then I sold it to someone else who still lives there off the grid and that was 30 some years ago..
A UPS is a battery that is designed to provide uninterrupted power for a limited period of time to keep electronics functioning properly.
at first I thought you meant the United postal service.
- Investor · Cumming, GA · Member since 2016 · 153 posts · 34 votes8y
Will they also regulate the amount the electric companies will reimburse customers for the grid-tie sell back amount? In Georgia, we are charged $0.08 - 0.10/kWh, but you get paid only $0.03/kWh for excess solar power generated (at least that was the offering from my electric company). So the amount the electric company will pay is a great factor in the pay-back.
I am most likely getting ready to put solar panels on my roof and my reasoning is that my monthly power bill is like paying rent to have electricity. If I get a low interest loan to get solar panels, I am essentially paying a mortgage to generate my own electricity instead. After it is paid off, the electricity will be free. The panels will pretty much last forever from what I have read and the cost of the loan can be cheaper than the equivalent cost you would pay the power company. I've had estimates between $2.50-3.00/Watt installed from several solar companies. I've looked at doing it myself and I can purchase the panels themselves for about $0.60/W on eBay or about $1.00/W for a DIY kit on eBay. I've actually purchased ten 275W panels recently for $1900 on eBay and a grid tied microinverter for two panels for $128. This would give a cost of about $254 ($0.92/W) without any subsidies for a panel and grid tie inverter that will generate about $5-8/mo worth of energy. At the DIY price even without subsidies, the panels follow the 2% rule. With installation at $2.5/W with 30% subsidy it is only maybe the 1% rule. The difference is a solar panel will not call you at 2 AM with a plumbing emergency and it is not always easy to sell the power you do not use back. An alternative would be to use the extra power to mine bitcoins using graphics cards or ASICs and programs like nicehash or claymore.
- Lender · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
I noticed this topic is picking up some traction again in other forums. Thought I should leave a link for my solar panel guy here http://www.geelectric.us/
Mike McQuillen is the man! Not a BP member but he's definitely who I would recommend for any property owners in the Ventura, Santa Clarita, and Santa Barbara counties looking for help with solar panel installation! He also makes some badass fishing lures! https://www.instagram.com/deadhorsebaits/?hl=en
Investor Property Loan5307 Reviews - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Alex Bekeza:
I noticed this topic is picking up some traction again in other forums. Thought I should leave a link for my solar panel guy here http://www.geelectric.us/
Mike McQuillen is the man! Not a BP member but he's definitely who I would recommend for any property owners in the Ventura, Santa Clarita, and Santa Barbara counties looking for help with solar panel installation! He also makes some badass fishing lures! https://www.instagram.com/deadhorsebaits/?hl=en
With all respect to Mike, it would be nice if the referrals could be made to solar professionals who are BP Members.
- Lender · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes7y
@Andrew Smith Totally, I've strongly encouraged him to create a profile.
I can only really vouch for people I've dealt with first hand but always eager to support my fellow BP contributors!
Investor Property Loan5307 Reviews - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Alex Bekeza:
@Andrew Smith Totally, I've strongly encouraged him to create a profile.
I can only really vouch for people I've dealt with first hand but always eager to support my fellow BP contributors!
I look forward to working with you first hand then Alex! :)
- Member since 2021 · 14 posts · 2 votes4y
Alex thanks for bringing this topic up. I think Steve K explained it clearly and thoroughly-could t have explained it better myself. When it comes to topics of sustainable building, green investing or energy efficiency in real estate its best to get actual facts and information from the green investors themselves that are implementing these strategies, green designated realtors and other folks that have invested in solar panels for their properties, etc. Whether people like it or not we are all moving towards green energy eventually. Every property is different and some might not be suitable for solar panels but for the ones that are elegible I shared a post about the return you can get from installing solar on multifams in the Innovative Strategies forum. Hope it can help put some numbers into perspective on. Here’s the link: https://www.biggerpockets.com/...
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.