let's talk about battery banks- I reckon the "they aren't worth it" thing is wrong

[iwire]

But they can and they do. Many municipalities will not issue a building permit if a connection to the grid is not part of the project. They cannot make you buy power but they can make you have a grid connection.

For sure, no connection no occupancy permit.

 

[PVfarmer]

But they can and they do. Many municipalities will not issue a building permit if a connection to the grid is not part of the project. They cannot make you buy power but they can make you have a grid connection.

That would be interesting to know, in how many states you can vs in how many you can't. Betcha there's some kind of "political" um....trend there. Not even sure which way.

This is pretty interesting. Almost hard to believe, really.

“There are no stockholders, and thus no profit motive,” the Nebraska Power Association proudly proclaims.
http://www.alternet.org/environment...rporate-hands-and-made-it-affordable-everyone

 

[PVfarmer]

For sure, no connection no occupancy permit.

Ok, they can make you have a connection for new construction some places- how can they tell you how to use it?
What if you've been occupying/connected and paying property tax to the town for 30 or 40 years? They want you to move to a better town? I hope not!

I'm not sure that there are minimum use laws to go along with minimum demand charges.

So "you can't go off grid" seems counter-productive.
If someone really wants to drop the grid and says "Ok, charge me $30 a month, I'll plug in my refrigerator and run everything else off of panels and batteries, I only use <4kWH a night.."
Who says "no"?

The "minimum use rule" would have to come from the POCO, which they do by minimum demand charge.

What's the big deal logistically?
The POCO removes the meter and wires, uses the xfmr for some new service somewhere else- customer is on their own.
The customer isn't helping with gird maintenance by paying a bill- because they aren't using the grid.
The overall effect on the grid operation and finances has to be pretty low, the only reason I can really think of for a town/city to say "no off-gridding" is...some obscure taxes thing?

On a feeder that was already strained, you'd think they would in fact encourage you to, as it would really be a help to the grid.

Also, a lot of towns have 30 years old ordinances that don't contain the words solar or PV anywhere! If they're using those to deny people their rights....that isn't fair.

Y'all are messing with me here- I'm not a libertarian, but all of a sudden I sound like one on the internet! :?

 

[iwire]

Ok, they can make you have a connection for new construction some places- how can they tell you how to use it?
What if you've been occupying/connected and paying property tax to the town for 30 or 40 years? They want you to move to a better town? I hope not!

If you drop below the minimum requirements they can revoke the occupancy permit.

Title 15. - BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 15.04. - CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS GENERALLY

15.12.140. - Minimum standards for light, ventilation and heating.

Where there is electric service available from power lines which are not more than three hundred (300) feet away from a dwelling, every habitable room of such dwelling shall contain at least two separate duplex wall-type electric convenience outlets, in addition to any ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, laundry room, furnace room and public hall shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture. Every such outlet and fixture shall be properly installed, maintained in good and safe working condition and connected to the source of electric power in a safe manner. Fuses and fuse holders and boxes shall conform to safety standards approved by the electrical inspector.

From here https://www.municode.com/library/ri...TIT15BUCO_CH15.12HOCO_15.12.020INDWDWUNROUNPR

 

[jim dungar]

Y'all are messing with me here- I'm not a libertarian, but all of a sudden I sound like one on the internet!

It is clear, you do not like POCOs. You have gone from discussing if batteries are 'always' a bad idea, to what is beginning to look like an attack on anything not-PV.
You exhibit some of the characteristics of 'conspirancy theory' fanatics, such as evading points that do not agree with your view and the constant linking to additional reference material.

It looks like it is time to bring this soapbox to a close.

 

[PVfarmer]

It is clear, you do not like POCOs. You have gone from discussing if batteries are 'always' a bad idea, to what is beginning to look like an attack on anything not-PV.
You exhibit some of the characteristics of 'conspirancy theory' fanatics, such as evading points that do not agree with your view and the constant linking to additional reference material.

It looks like it is time to bring this soapbox to a close.

To me, it seems like I'm responding in a friendly manner to some other folks offering advice.
The libertarian thing was supposed to be a joke. I apologize if it did not seem that way.

I'm not sure where I said I "don't like POCOs", we are discussing many different issues in different states.

 

[ggunn]

It is clear, you do not like POCOs. You have gone from discussing if batteries are 'always' a bad idea, to what is beginning to look like an attack on anything not-PV.
You exhibit some of the characteristics of 'conspirancy theory' fanatics, such as evading points that do not agree with your view and the constant linking to additional reference material.

And someone else is chiming in with the polar opposite viewpoint, which looks like an attack on anything PV.

I agree; this discussion has run its course, kinda like the flu.

 

[PVfarmer]

I can argue less, that's always an option.

As far as I'm concerned, PV+storage is at least worth looking into carefully in any state in New England, and probably NY/NJ.
It's nice that someone disagrees about Maine, but I used to live there and know people that live there.

My friendly advice to anyone else would be "it might be worth looking into" and even "carefully" if that isn't too strong an endorsement.

It depends on:
State you are in and prices/incentives therein. Whether you have 0% shade or a big tree off to the side but in the way after 3PM.
A bunch of complicated financial "projections" which are really very much "guesses" (thanks again Wayne, I mean that, deviating from the "straight line" is....eeek! But I learned something, not exactly sure what yet).

Someone might want to net meter with a (new) inverter with a plug- someone might want to get more complicated.
Someone might have electric water heating, their neighbor might use LP gas or (in Alaska) diesel for hot water.

There are too many variables to say yes or no, not having used those variables.

Also- that's the general Muni code I mentioned which doesn't mention solar at all.

Edit: If you don't mind a lighter tone..and one more link...
@ Wayne- I took your advice, and ended up coming with this (myself) which I then looked up for a 2nd opinion- what say you?
FiT taxable as miscellaneous income
If the FiT is received by an individual acting in a personal capacity and:
Either, the electricity generated is intended to be significantly (>20%) more than own domestic use
Or, the installation is not at or near domestic premises occupied by the individual.
This is then the worst tax position to be in.
http://www.greenaccountancy.com/wp-...11/111031-Tax-treatment-of-Feed-in-Tariff.pdf

 

[Electric-Light]

8 You mentioned clouds moving across PV arrays affecting the grid- they do that by causing voltage drops...or is it drops and then spikes? Or...?

The larger the percentage of power provided by solar, greater the effect. If you had 50 pillars supporting a structure, you can knock out any one of them any time and the rest will hold the structure. That's how it works when solar is only supporting a small portion of the load.

When 20 of them get taken out at once, it should be obvious what will happen. When the panels are clouded out, power output drops suddenly. Microinverters only help to maintain output when part of the system is shaded. They do not come up with extra power when the weather goes bad.

You'll need a UPS system that can ride-through the entire duration of inclement weather, or you'll need a generator that will take over and pickup the entire capacity which will add to overall generation cost. Cost does not occur per kW of generation. When you buy a TV for $600, but it only sees 100 hours of use before you sell it for $100, each hour gets allocated $5/hr. The $500 has to come from some source of revenue.

If 20 people expects their bus to arrive, but if the bus breaks down and they have to send taxis to cover these customers, this cost comes out of thin air. Alternatively, they could maintain this capacity in-house with a spare bus. It turns out that you have to pay money to buy a spare bus even if you don't put a single mile on it. Solar developers are aware of it, but present it differently.

The current DG industry is hugely burdensome, because solar people wants to get full pricing on the kWh, but whine about having to pay towards system capacity.

The cost to install, mechanical room space, up keeps of backup generators raise the average cost per kWh for facilities who need reliable power. If they used less kWh, most of generator related expenses remain unchanged, so the "average cent per kWh" simply go up since the generator is still necessary.

Enphase said brand new grids and 50 year old grids don't act the same. This is true. So, maybe the solar industry should pay for the upgrade using their own money.

 

[Electric-Light]

Ok, they can make you have a connection for new construction some places- how can they tell you how to use it?
What if you've been occupying/connected and paying property tax to the town for 30 or 40 years? They want you to move to a better town? I hope not!

I'm not sure that there are minimum use laws to go along with minimum demand charges.

So "you can't go off grid" seems counter-productive.
If someone really wants to drop the grid and says "Ok, charge me $30 a month, I'll plug in my refrigerator and run everything else off of panels and batteries, I only use <4kWH a night.."
Who says "no"?

The "minimum use rule" would have to come from the POCO, which they do by minimum demand charge.

What's the big deal logistically?
The POCO removes the meter and wires, uses the xfmr for some new service somewhere else- customer is on their own.
The customer isn't helping with gird maintenance by paying a bill- because they aren't using the grid.
The overall effect on the grid operation and finances has to be pretty low, the only reason I can really think of for a town/city to say "no off-gridding" is...some obscure taxes thing?

On a feeder that was already strained, you'd think they would in fact encourage you to, as it would really be a help to the grid.

Also, a lot of towns have 30 years old ordinances that don't contain the words solar or PV anywhere! If they're using those to deny people their rights....that isn't fair.

Y'all are messing with me here- I'm not a libertarian, but all of a sudden I sound like one on the internet! :?

It gives renewable energy developers a guaranteed 15- to 20-year tariff instead of a contract. Once a developer qualifies for the tariff, the bill stipulates that it cannot be rescinded or taken away. This new system for paying owners of renewable energy projects would (if enacted) be a classic win-win. The developer gets what she needs: a stream of payments, guaranteed by law, that can be used to collateralize a loan to build her project.

How can this lock-in that could obligate someone for 15-20 years and deny the right to different tariff possibly be win-win? It denies the people to switch to wind, biomass, nuclear, fossil fuel, or whatever is in trend at the time and that isn't fair!. What you just said is a contract that makes obligations in favor of solar developers, but not in favor of the public. It's not needed.

What's the problem logistically if PoCo cancels on solar developers with a 30 day notice? Owners of renewable energy projects remove their Solar PV stuff like panels, wires, and uses the inverters for some new customers who want to willingly purchase solar power at their asking price per kWh and current customers can buy power from sources with more favorable conditions Win-Win!

 

[ggunn]

What's the problem logistically if PoCo cancels on solar developers with a 30 day notice? Owners of renewable energy projects remove their Solar PV stuff like panels, wires, and uses the inverters for some new customers who want to willingly purchase solar power at their asking price per kWh and current customers can buy power from sources with more favorable conditions Win-Win!

Except for whoever paid for the solar equipment, of course, but who cares about those guys, right?

 

[Electric-Light]

Except for whoever paid for the solar equipment, of course, but who cares about those guys, right?

According to PV Farmer, it's no problem logistically.

The creation of electricity from light isn't the problem.

The problem in general is developers whose existence generally contribute to more environmental impact and social expenses than not. Solar developers exist to profit from markup and cash-flow on solar installation or something through the back-end at public expense.

Your group has a fine dinner at a restaurant and the bill is $1,500. That place charge around $12 for a bowl of organic garden salad. The bill is $1,500, but it didn't cost the restaurant $1,500 to provide the service.

Couldn't they just be paid in organic veggies at a credit of $12 per portion enough to make a garden salad they serve, credited per ounce basis and given a whole year to settle the balance?

No, there's no way that would make business sense. When something like that happens, there's usually a back story. The organic garden might be a non-profit operated on a land owned by developer which receives tax exemption for sustainable operations and the garden's solar power system was funded by a grant which created "local jobs" but also paid for profit for the affiliated solar developer.

The large picture is that solar and property developers are turning profit at public expense and it often involves complex scheme.

Distributed generation and in particular, residential solar is expensive, because it's too divided up and there's solar developer involvement.

The cheapest way to make potatoes isn't to do it in one farm and shipping everywhere nor is it encouraging every person to personally grow 10 lbs of it. There's a happy median somewhere. DG divides up into too small of chunks, but solar developers are profiting from each chunk, which increases social cost.

http://greenzone.co/2014/01/29/solar-panels-cost-1-per-watt-pay-5-per-watt-get-solar-system/

 

[ggunn]

[...]

Yeah, we all know your opinion of the solar industry. It's the root of all evil.

Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.

 

[iwire]

Yeah, we all know your opinion of the solar industry. It's the root of all evil.

Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.

:thumbsup:

 

[Electric-Light]

Yeah, we all know your opinion of the solar industry. It's the root of all evil.

Thankfully, not everyone agrees with you.

It's not the problem with sun to electricity concept. It's the HUGE amounts of soft costs with distributed generation that's split up into segments.

There are only two purposes presented to the public: green and job creation.

The huge amounts of money wasted to fund solar developer profit is wasted money that did not go towards capacity or real job creation. We're all paying for the green industry scandal indirectly. It's like privatizing the concept of low delivered value to cost ratio typical of Government inefficiencies.

 

[jaggedben]

... Solar developers exist to profit from markup and cash-flow on solar installation or something through the back-end at public expense. ...

Gosh darn, you mean solar developers have the same business models as investor owned utilities and just about every large corporation in America and the world? hmy:

 

[Electric-Light]

I thought my response was reasonably fair in response to this. It reveals the issue that so called solar developer don't understand how the grid works, or chooses not to.

What's the big deal logistically?
The POCO removes the meter and wires, uses the xfmr for some new service somewhere else- customer is on their own.
The customer isn't helping with gird maintenance by paying a bill- because they aren't using the grid.
The overall effect on the grid operation and finances has to be pretty low, the only reason I can really think of for a town/city to say "no off-gridding" is...some obscure taxes thing?

On a feeder that was already strained, you'd think they would in fact encourage you to, as it would really be a help to the grid.

 

[PVfarmer]

1 The larger the percentage of power provided by solar, greater the effect. .... It turns out that you have to pay money to buy a spare bus even if you don't put a single mile on it. Solar developers are aware of it, but present it differently.

2 The current DG industry is hugely burdensome, because solar people wants to get full pricing on the kWh, but whine about having to pay towards system capacity.

3 The cost to install, mechanical room space, up keeps of backup generators raise the average cost per kWh for facilities who need reliable power. If they used less kWh, most of generator related expenses remain unchanged, so the "average cent per kWh" simply go up since the generator is still necessary.

4 Enphase said brand new grids and 50 year old grids don't act the same. This is true. So, maybe the solar industry should pay for the upgrade using their own money.

5 How can this lock-in that could obligate someone for 15-20 years and deny the right to different tariff possibly be win-win? It denies the people to switch to wind, biomass, nuclear, fossil fuel, or whatever is in trend at the time and that isn't fair!. What you just said is a contract that makes obligations in favor of solar developers, but not in favor of the public. It's not needed.

6 What's the problem logistically if PoCo cancels on solar developers with a 30 day notice?

7 gg-Except for whoever paid for the solar equipment, of course, but who cares about those guys, right?

8 Solar developers exist to profit from markup and cash-flow on solar installation or something through the back-end at public expense. The large picture is that solar and property developers are turning profit at public expense and it often involves complex scheme. Distributed generation and in particular, residential solar is expensive, because it's too divided up and there's solar developer involvement.

9 The cheapest way to make potatoes isn't to do it in one farm and shipping everywhere nor is it encouraging every person to personally grow 10 lbs of it. There's a happy median somewhere. DG divides up into too small of chunks, but solar developers are profiting from each chunk, which increases social cost.

10 It's not the problem with sun to electricity concept. It's the HUGE amounts of soft costs with distributed generation that's split up into segments. There are only two purposes presented to the public: green and job creation.
http://greenzone.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Soft-and-hard-costs-PV-residential.jpg

11 jb-Gosh darn, you mean solar developers have the same business models as investor owned utilities and just about every large corporation in America and the world? hmy:

12 I thought my response was reasonably fair in response to this. It reveals the issue that so called solar developer don't understand how the grid works, or chooses not to.

Um...where to start...#11 +/- 8?

There is a distinct lack of transparency in the solar industry- it isn't a conspiracy, it's because the stuff is really pretty complicated, unfortunately too much so for the "average homeowner", whoever that is.
That average person is a bit different in all 50 states. And so yes of course, #1, developers present it differently. And people get taken advantage of.

This is actually kind of funny- I was thinking about this and decided to NOT use the word developer at all - Solar SERVICES is much better.
Side note: It's sort of the same kind of thing as people who work for (any kind) of "non-profit" organization raking in 6 figures- we all know it happens, all the time. It's kind of unavoidable, really.

1 See #12?

2 It is burdensome, but it also has huge benefits overall. It is again, set up differently everywhere- there's RGGI in New England + Mid-Atlantic, and the people "in charge" of New England, ISO-NE, are "non-profit" and seem pretty cool overall.
Since 2009, the RGGI states have received and disbursed virtually all of nearly $2 billion in proceeds from CO2-allowance auctions back into the economy in various ways, including on: energy efficiency measures; community-based renewable power projects; credits on customers’ bills; assistance to low-income customers to help pay their electricity bills; greenhouse-gas-reduction measures; and education and job training programs.
http://www.analysisgroup.com/upload...hing/analysis_group_rggi_report_july_2015.pdf

3 and 4 I really don't get those. Here in RI the POCO charges .003 cents/kWh on all bills to pay for the DG program. And like I'm trying to say, DG can lower or delay the POCO's cost of upgrading older feeders.

5 I hear you on that one about favoring developers- if was easier to figure out, there wouldn't be such an opportunity to "inflate soft costs". But the neither POCO nor customer is "locked in" for 15 or 20 years- they leave working out new deals or expanding pretty open- you'd have to wait 2 years to put in "more solar", but no wait on wind if you've just done solar for instance.

6 Well... Developer OR homowner, the whole deal is based on a PV system with 20 year life and a payback period of XX years, so just saying "we want to cancel this after 2 years just because.." isn't really fair.
But if the system isn't performing correctly or messing up the grid, of course they would have that right?

7 Exactly.

8 See my #2 and 5. The "involvement" is a much bigger problem than the "divided up" thing, I'd say.

9 That is in fact the way potatoes are done...and yep, it is a problem. But- having a 100kW PV system a quarter mile away to run a small neighborhood (owned by a developer) is less efficient than putting 8kw systems on 16 houses' roofs (and a 4kW on a small house to make 100kW)- of curse the 2nd option without developer is the ideal.

10 Yes- but I will say the government itself is aware of the "soft cost problem" in the industry and is trying to bring it down, and even succeeding in places! Which the gov doesn't always do so often...

11 NOT this one (this developer is a "service provider")! :happyyes:

12 Um, this one does- but most, I will agree, don't really get into the details of the grid beyond "it gives us money", for sure.

 

[ggunn]

It's not the problem with sun to electricity concept. It's the HUGE amounts of soft costs with distributed generation that's split up into segments.

There are only two purposes presented to the public: green and job creation.

The huge amounts of money wasted to fund solar developer profit is wasted money that did not go towards capacity or real job creation. We're all paying for the green industry scandal indirectly. It's like privatizing the concept of low delivered value to cost ratio typical of Government inefficiencies.

As I said, not everyone (not even close) agrees with you and for that I am thankful.

 

[ggunn]

There is a new development coming on the storage front, although it still won't be economically viable where there is net metering and the grid is dependable, and that is according to the guys making it and selling it.

Solar Edge and Tesla are teaming up on a system that will be called StorEdge. Solar Edge is unique in the PV world in that it uses a paired system of optimizers and inverters where the DC bus runs at a constant voltage no matter what the stringing. That enables the StorEdge inverter (which uses a Solar Edge inverter at its core) to access a DC bus that combines PV and batteries with the same voltage, which eliminates the need for a second inverter or charge controller. Otherwise the architecture of the system looks a lot like a Sunny Island system, but with fewer "moving parts".

According to the presentation I saw today the targeted rollout is in Q4 2015.