sort of an add on to the CA thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
analog8484 said:
Not sure if you have solar or know the cost of a typical solar system. It's generally $3-$4/watt unless you DIY. Using a typical 5kW example that's $15-$20K which is a significant sum for most people. So, if you own that system and you get a power outage where your wife finds out solar doesn't work and ends up spending hours to throw out bad food, clean refrigerator and restock the refrigerator. Now, your wife is yelling at you for spending all that money on the solar system that doesn't work when you need it the most. What's your value now? For some, the value is high enough to go spend another $15-20K for a home battery. Many more people don't see the financial justification and just bought generators. You can look at the sales and stock price trend of Generac to get a sense of the demand surge. For most of solar owners, 10-20% of their solar system cost is likely the practical value for broad adoption.
Click to expand...

You can also look at how Generac has bought up two significant companies with battery and solar products to integrate into their portfolio of offerings. They can see which way the wind is blowing.
 
It's very common for people to want to solve large scale problems with a one-size fits all idea and they rarely pan out, if ever. I literally had someone tell me "just stop driving everywhere." Well, how do I get to work? "Live closer to work, or work closer to where you live." I can't afford to live in walking distance from my job. "Get a new job." I can't make as much anywhere in walking distance to where I live. "Then live off of less." The same person wants to ban the consumption of Natural Gas. How are people going to cook and stay warm? "They'll have to go all electric." What if they can't afford it? "well, they will just have to figure it out." Then I reminded them that our pg&e plant uses natural gas to produce our electricity. That ended the conversation unfortunately. I was looking forward the hearing how they would solve that one.

The idea of using solar and batteries is great, for those who can afford it. CA lawmakers/code writers have determined that if you can afford to build a house here, you can afford to add solar. Like may other energy saving factors CA Energy Code will probably slowly increase the amount of solar required and eventually they will probably make battery storage a requirement too. Some places are trying to "outlaw" natural gas in new construction, or incentivize all electric construction. All fine and dandy for new construction. It doesn't do anything for existing buildings. There is no way to tell a family that's living month-to-month "this new law says you can't have gas anymore. Sorry, you'll have to come up with the money to upgrade your house or you'll freeze this winter." You can't pass a law that says every building must have solar and battery unless the money is there to pay for it. Knock on any door and ask "If I pay for it all can we put solar and batteries on your house?" I'm pretty sure most people would say yes. But is there $100 bazillion dollars for CA to pay for everybody's new PV +ESS system? If so then we might get somewhere, but I find that unlikely.

I've seen some really cool systems installed lately that will allow the customer to keep a critical loads panel going during an outage and they can utilize their PV output without the grid. Very very cool, and I'm happy for them, but they are the very few who have the means and the desire to do so. Most people are just making rent and hoping they can cover their bills this month. Some people have worked hard and they are finally getting to buy a home for the first time and they're going to discover that when their water heater breaks, they have to pay for it, oh and it's going to need a new roof, and by the way the wiring is outdated. Those people may want solar with battery but are they going to prioritize that over other things?

Anyways I guess I'm just venting, so apologies. I don't know who said it first but I remember it from the movie Fight Club:" The things you own end up owning you."
 
Joe.B said:
It's very common for people to want to solve large scale problems with a one-size fits all idea and they rarely pan out, if ever. I literally had someone tell me "just stop driving everywhere." Well, how do I get to work? "Live closer to work, or work closer to where you live." I can't afford to live in walking distance from my job. "Get a new job." I can't make as much anywhere in walking distance to where I live. "Then live off of less." The same person wants to ban the consumption of Natural Gas. How are people going to cook and stay warm? "They'll have to go all electric." What if they can't afford it? "well, they will just have to figure it out." Then I reminded them that our pg&e plant uses natural gas to produce our electricity. That ended the conversation unfortunately. I was looking forward the hearing how they would solve that one.

The idea of using solar and batteries is great, for those who can afford it. CA lawmakers/code writers have determined that if you can afford to build a house here, you can afford to add solar. Like may other energy saving factors CA Energy Code will probably slowly increase the amount of solar required and eventually they will probably make battery storage a requirement too. Some places are trying to "outlaw" natural gas in new construction, or incentivize all electric construction. All fine and dandy for new construction. It doesn't do anything for existing buildings. There is no way to tell a family that's living month-to-month "this new law says you can't have gas anymore. Sorry, you'll have to come up with the money to upgrade your house or you'll freeze this winter." You can't pass a law that says every building must have solar and battery unless the money is there to pay for it. Knock on any door and ask "If I pay for it all can we put solar and batteries on your house?" I'm pretty sure most people would say yes. But is there $100 bazillion dollars for CA to pay for everybody's new PV +ESS system? If so then we might get somewhere, but I find that unlikely.

I've seen some really cool systems installed lately that will allow the customer to keep a critical loads panel going during an outage and they can utilize their PV output without the grid. Very very cool, and I'm happy for them, but they are the very few who have the means and the desire to do so. Most people are just making rent and hoping they can cover their bills this month. Some people have worked hard and they are finally getting to buy a home for the first time and they're going to discover that when their water heater breaks, they have to pay for it, oh and it's going to need a new roof, and by the way the wiring is outdated. Those people may want solar with battery but are they going to prioritize that over other things?

Anyways I guess I'm just venting, so apologies. I don't know who said it first but I remember it from the movie Fight Club:" The things you own end up owning you."
Click to expand...

So, I guess you are not following PG&E's suggestion to not cook during peak demand hours and just eat cold cuts :cool:
 
analog8484 said:
So, I guess you are not following PG&E's suggestion to not cook during peak demand hours and just eat cold cuts :cool:
Click to expand...
The house I rent has a gas stove. Gas furnace, water heater, and dryer too. So no, I'm cooking on gas whenever it's time to cook. As far as I know it doesn't matter what time we use gas.

I actually used this house as an example of what it would take to convert to all electric. Major service upgrade, running new circuits, new electric appliances (stove, dryer, heat-pumps for space conditioning and water heat) and new solar pv system. I left the ESS and car charger out. I used a few different configurations and used some other projects as models for costs but I couldn't get the cost below $25,000. Realistically after design, energy calcs, multiple contractors, etc. it would be more like $40-50k. What landlord is going to invest that into a rental?? Then they'd jack my rent up $200-300 per month and still it would take 10-20 years to recoup their cost, no way! And I'd be paying for it really, on their house to boot. And that's just one house, there's a lot of houses here. Upgrade 10,000 houses at a minimum of $20k per house, that's $200 million dollars just to make a dent in just this little remote corner of CA. Does CA have a few hundred billion dollars to throw at this? And it still doesn't change the fact that our grid power is fueled by Natural Gas. Or diesel if they need to supplement. How do we offset that? I suggested they spend some time looking into carbon capture technology, invest in wave/tide powered generation, or off-shore wind farms. Or even rebuild the decommissioned nuclear plant. You'd think I just cursed everybody's mother when I said that, it was like I was speaking in tongue and raising the dead. Sigh...
 
pv_n00b said:
Does this thread really have anything to do with the purpose of the PV forum anymore?
Click to expand...
Yes... indirectly. I apologized for going on a rant but the PV electrical production and potential battery storage is the way people are moving away from natural gas consumption. The cost of such systems is the prohibiting factor, who's going to pay for it. The wealthy are going all electric because they have the money to install elaborate solar systems and go to all electric. My point was that my landlord is not going to drop that kind of money on the house I live in, and I'm certainly not going to either. The codes will keep heading in that direction and new construction will head in the right direction, all fine and dandy, but what about the approximately 10 million or so homes for low-middle income people who can't afford the switch. Who's going to pay for that? Anyways, sorry again for ranting. Didn't intend to derail the thread.
 
Joe.B said:
Yes... indirectly. I apologized for going on a rant but the PV electrical production and potential battery storage is the way people are moving away from natural gas consumption. The cost of such systems is the prohibiting factor, who's going to pay for it. The wealthy are going all electric because they have the money to install elaborate solar systems and go to all electric. My point was that my landlord is not going to drop that kind of money on the house I live in, and I'm certainly not going to either. The codes will keep heading in that direction and new construction will head in the right direction, all fine and dandy, but what about the approximately 10 million or so homes for low-middle income people who can't afford the switch. Who's going to pay for that? Anyways, sorry again for ranting. Didn't intend to derail the thread.
Click to expand...
I have heard about these and other changes going forward with new construction, but is anyone seriously considering requiring that they retrofit existing residences?
 
ggunn said:
I have heard about these and other changes going forward with new construction, but is anyone seriously considering requiring that they retrofit existing residences?
Click to expand...
There is enough money involved for those with a vested interest in such systems, so it is probably just a matter of time.
 
petersonra said:
There is enough money involved for those with a vested interest in such systems, so it is probably just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
Time will tell, I guess, but it seems unlikely to me. If I had to spend $50k to convert to all electric I would just sell and move. Everyone else doing the same thing would cause the housing market to collapse.
 
petersonra said:
I doubt the zealots would care much.
Click to expand...
Zealots rarely do, but I doubt that they can or will do what you are suggesting. I have heard of several municipalities that have stopped zoning newly annexed areas as single family, but that doesn't mean they will be rezoning as multifamily areas that are presently single family, forcing people out of their condemned homes, and bringing in the bulldozers.
 
ggunn said:
Time will tell, I guess, but it seems unlikely to me.
Click to expand...

Me too. I find these conversations so absurd, that people think the rule makers will be Able to institute policies that cause "the grid to collapse", regular rolling blackouts or such and the people will just let it happen and not vote them out of office. Give me a break, politicians are remarkably adaptable!
 
"Request for Proposal" by Anthony R. Lewis

I can't even begin to describe the story without giving spoilers. PM me if you want them.

-Jon
 
ggunn said:
I have heard about these and other changes going forward with new construction, but is anyone seriously considering requiring that they retrofit existing residences?
Click to expand...
Yes there are serious proposals in CA to "ban" the use of Natural Gas. A few places actually passed some sort of ordinances to that effect, Berkeley for example, but I think that there have been lawsuits against those ordinances. It seems absurd but yes, people are trying to literally shut of gas, period. I find it absurd anyways.

www.theguardian.com

Berkeley became first US city to ban natural gas. Here's what that may mean for the future

The California city on Tuesday voted to ban natural gas hook-ups in new buildings, in a historic move
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Joe.B said:
Yes there are serious proposals in CA to "ban" the use of Natural Gas.
Click to expand...
The article you quoted does not say that, and it supports ggunn's point: the prohibitions coming out now in a few places are on natural gas infrastructure in new construction. Because it makes no sense to commit today to burning fossil fuels for the next 50 years. There's no ban of natural gas or changes for existing users.

As to the current installed base, hopefully it can be phased out over the next 20-50 years.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
The article you quoted does not say that, and it supports ggunn's point: the prohibitions coming out now in a few places are on natural gas infrastructure in new construction. Because it makes no sense to commit today to burning fossil fuels for the next 50 years. There's no ban of natural gas or changes for existing users.

As to the current installed base, hopefully it can be phased out over the next 20-50 years.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
But this one does:

City considering ban of natural gas appliances in existing homes – Palo Alto Daily Post

padailypost.com padailypost.com
 
gadfly56 said:
But this one does:
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks for the pointer. Sound like they are looking at a variety of options: requiring electric conversion when a home is sold or a major remodel is done, or offering incentives for conversions. Loans were mentioned in the context of "people who want to electrify their homes but can’t afford to".

I don't see any mention of a proposal that by such and such a date, everyone has to do a conversion and pay for it themselves or be sanctioned.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top