All Forum Posts by: Andrew Smith

 A reputable solar company will either not charge, or will charge a nominal amount to lift and replace the system to allow the roof to be repaired/replaced. As far as technology goes, it shouldn't matter as the panels you put on now should produce for decades. There would be no advantage to replacing that system - again that is provided you get production-warrantied panels at the outset.

 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.

 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). 

 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?

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?

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.

 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?

"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

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-san-onofre-nuclear-waste-storage-20180327-story.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.

@Bart H.

"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"

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf

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.

@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.