What's new

Jesus Fucking Christ CALIFORNIA

Sounds good but dunno how that would work. DC panels from out of state and a cutoff switch?
Imagine running the PGE feed to a single circuit panel with a 220V circuit that has a 48V inverter/charger that goes to the power bank(batteries) The house circuit breaker would be wired to the battery bank(48v to 220V inverter) The solar would be wired to the power bank.

The above is just an on a napkin sketch and probably missing details.
 
how does that business model work?

there is no way those companies are structured to be around that long or manage the payments. are they selling the contracts to a third party?

I suspect its a debt, which they then sell/leverage. They really, really like the power purchase agreements, which entails them installing their property on your roof. They keep the panels, and sell the fact that there is "no upkeep! We take care of it all!" So minus the install and loss of the use of parts, they get to charge you for the power. Which, after 30 years is close to 70k.
 
I'm offgrid running on solar. My batteries are charged by noon or so (depending on conditions).

So during much of the day, my charge controllers stop accepting power from the panels.

I'm always thinking of ways to use the leftover power, but there really isn't any 'cheap' way of doing so.
simplest thing is to pump water to a higher storage tank when you have excess power

then let the gravity of that feed water with pressure to your house without any power

next step up from that would be a mini hydro electric setup to have that elevated water make electricity for you
 
I just signed a contract to get solar installed. :grinpimp:

Good heavens though, there are some shameless liars in that industry. The power-purchase-agreements, leases, etc. There are a constant stream of door knockers with dubious claims. I decided to go through with mine, via outright purchase, as it's a smaller system, no interest (cash purchase), and it'll pay for itself in about 7.5-8 years based on current kw/h prices. They argue til they're blue in the face about why signing their 25 year lease is the better way to go. But confronted with the math, it costs more to do that than to not.

We have a terrible net-metering deal (7c per kwh), so for me this system is only about 60% of our energy demands. I like solar, like the idea of making my own power. :homer:
$0.05 here. Power rate just raised to about $0.25 too.
 
1.8kw of PV going to a Renogy 48v inverter/mppt
1.2kw of PV going to a Renogy 60amp mppt
4 Chins LFP 12v 200ah batteries wired in series (both mppt's connected to the battery)

The Renogy inverter is too old to record usage.

Kitchen oven, clothes dryer and water heater are propane. I do have 2 electric refrigerators and a 1550 gallon water tank connected to a jet pump/pressure tank. Microwave and air fryer are my biggest power consumers.

I can go 2 days with 'no sun' (overcast) then I get down to the point where I may crank up the 7200w gas generator, but rarely do that.
You could do some heating of water with your post-noon electricity that you're shunting. That'd ease up your propane usage.
Or pump water up a hill, as others have said.
 
It was 111 F in Sacramento yesterday. Today is supposed to be the peak heat. A google search brings up entirely conflicting MEDIA statements about "expected" power outages. Here is the State website - Power Outage Incidents

FUCK THE MEDIA

I don't see any credible information on massive brownouts anywhere. Some of the outages are "planned" but these only affect a few hundred or a thousand people. There are 39,000,000. people, don't know how many qualify as users. But I don't see the hysteria that is being hyped. We can always hope, as it it will fuck Gavin Gruesome in the ass HARD if his grid chokes all the while he has signed legislation that is combative, irrational and destructive to any productive responsible energy policy.
 
Yeah, power went out here 3x for about 6hrs each because holiday use........

So was that LAST week or current ? PG&E ? How hot is it up there now ? I know I could check some webs but interesting to hear from a human :flipoff2:
 
I'm offgrid running on solar. My batteries are charged by noon or so (depending on conditions).

So during much of the day, my charge controllers stop accepting power from the panels.

I'm always thinking of ways to use the leftover power, but there really isn't any 'cheap' way of doing so.
Cool your house more than you need to during the day. Let it warm up overnight. Pump water uphill to a holding tank.
 
I live in the Saint George Utah area. . So we are undergoing a huge housing expanision. All kinds of Kalifornia pukes are pouring in. So today the POCO is asking peeps not to charge their EV's and everyone to turn up the t-stats. What is going to happen in a few years when we have even more people sucking up juice??? Another kicker; they are dumping water from Lake Powel to keep the Colorado river cool. :homer::homer::homer::homer:
 
It's Commiefornia for a reason... :lmao:

?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Fcom.gif
 
So was that LAST week or current ? PG&E ? How hot is it up there now ? I know I could check some webs but interesting to hear from a human :flipoff2:
Last weekend

250people town that is typicaly less the 100 permenant res.

105-112

Not pge, trinity public utiltiy district

And a county completely stuffed with "its too hot omg" faggots, the same ****s that cry about the cold.
One dumb **** even had a generator but refused to run it while crying about her food "investment", sprinkler timers and refusing to get in her car and go somewhere else.
 
After NEM3 PGE only has to buy it back at $.08 while we pay like $.43 per KW during peak.

Do they have separate generation and transmission fees? I wonder if pge is paying transmission on the kw it buys.
 
No point in solar w/o batteries, imho. Out full house quote, including heat pumps, was $110k. About 1/2 of that was batteries… :Homer:

what the ROI on that? was that the out of pocket price or full price?
 
what the ROI on that? was that the out of pocket price or full price?
full price, before tax incentives. Somewhat unique install since the panels would be on the barn instead of the house ~300' away. IIRC, the ROI was 15+ years, depending on what numbers were used to predict future electric prices.
 
Wasn't there a thread about a water tower perpetual motion contraption on here? That's who we need to consult on energy storage. :lmao:
 
full price, before tax incentives. Somewhat unique install since the panels would be on the barn instead of the house ~300' away. IIRC, the ROI was 15+ years, depending on what numbers were used to predict future electric prices.

that is the part i dont understand, ROI on the systems when the people actually do the math is 10+ years and they always claim the price of power is going to skyrocket (aka justification for poor math with fear) . then you toss in the terrible terms and 'lease/financing' deals it does not pencil out.

the only thing i can come up with is the power companys are trying to get the people to crowd source their power only to redistribute it and reduce their operational costs.
 
that is the part i dont understand, ROI on the systems when the people actually do the math is 10+ years and they always claim the price of power is going to skyrocket (aka justification for poor math with fear) . then you toss in the terrible terms and 'lease/financing' deals it does not pencil out.

the only thing i can come up with is the power companys are trying to get the people to crowd source their power only to redistribute it and reduce their operational costs.

I could have gotten the price waaay down if we yanked the heat pumps out of the equation.

The proposal that was given to us was very detailed and had a couple of tech things that were interesting. They used 5% annual energy price increases for their calculations, which seemed very reasonable to me.

The quote that I got for a backup generator that could handle the whole house was $40k
 
I suspect its a debt, which they then sell/leverage. They really, really like the power purchase agreements, which entails them installing their property on your roof. They keep the panels, and sell the fact that there is "no upkeep! We take care of it all!" So minus the install and loss of the use of parts, they get to charge you for the power. Which, after 30 years is close to 70k.
The other catch and the one that pushed me away from the lease deals was the fact that the homeowner doesn't own any of it, but is responsible for it should any damage happen. So if the solar panels get damaged somehow, you have to pay to replace them, but you don't own any of it.
 
I'm offgrid running on solar. My batteries are charged by noon or so (depending on conditions).

So during much of the day, my charge controllers stop accepting power from the panels.

I'm always thinking of ways to use the leftover power, but there really isn't any 'cheap' way of doing so.
electric water heater
 
I haven taken the time to watch the videos . .. . :goofball:

Is there a storage/battery shortage or a solar surplus ? Because the two are inter related and mutually dependent. The storage is more costly than slapping panels up that only emit power during sunlight hours, and store or produce in the dark.
 
Oh you're on propane right
take the drain cock out and tee it off to a pipe that runs up to the relief valve port on the side of the tank
assuming the relief valve port is like 6" down the side of the tank like they normally are
put the electric heater element in this pipe to percolate the heat into the tank and bring it above the temperature where the gas valve is doing gas valve things
insulate it all of course

tee the relief valve into the outlet pipe or whatever
 
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It’s a common sight across the state: rows of suburban homes topped with solar panels.

But as California works toward its ambitious clean energy vision, an almost counterintuitive challenge has emerged: The state is, at times, generating more solar energy than it can handle. It’s to the point where loads of clean energy are going to waste.
The phenomenon, which other states are likely to run into as they ramp up their own solar production, has been dubbed the “duck curve.” The belly of the duck is the time of day when solar production can exceed demand. Because solar energy relies on the sun, the curve is often most pronounced on sunny days during the spring, when not as many people are using power and running their air conditioning.
We get into certain times of the year, in the springtime particularly, when the demand for electricity isn’t that high yet, and we have quite a bit of solar production where, under certain conditions, we actually have more than California can actually use,” said Elliot Mainzer, the CEO of California’s Independent System Operator, which manages 80% of the state’s electricity flow.
“Under those conditions, we take advantage of the significant amount of transmission connectivity that we have to other parts of the West, and we export a lot of that energy for other utilities around the Western United States,” he said.



“And under certain extreme conditions, we actually have to curtail it and turn it off,” he added.

According to Independent System Operator data, in recent years, the amount of renewable energy curtailed, or wasted, has skyrocketed from both oversupply and so-called congestion, when there’s more electricity than the transmission lines in some areas can handle. So far this year, the state has lost out on nearly 2.6 million megawatt-hours of renewable energy — most of it solar — more than enough to power all the homes in San Francisco for a year.

Mainzer said adding transmission lines would help increase the flow of electricity throughout the state and is advocating for permitting reform to make that happen
“When you build a new solar project or you build a new battery or a new wind project or a new geothermal resource, if you don’t have transmission lines available to access that and deliver it to customers, that generation is basically an island. It’s stranded,” he said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has also been pushing to add more batteries to store that excess energy for use during peak-demand times. And state regulators with the California Public Utilities Commission have taken a more controversial approach: drastically cutting financial incentives for homeowners looking to install solar.
The move has outraged many in the rooftop solar industry, like Ed Murray, the president of the California Solar and Storage Association, who operates Aztec Solar outside Sacramento. The changes, he said, have been devastating for his business. He said he has laid off 10 employees over the last year.

“Sales went flat, because nobody wanted it anymore,” Murray said. “It was not productive or cost-effective to do solar, and we were left figuring out what do we do now.

According to the California Solar and Storage Association, residential solar installations have dropped by 66% in the first quarter of 2024 compared with the same period in 2022. The trade group estimates that since the state changed the incentive structure, known as net metering, 17,000 green jobs have been lost statewide.

To make it cost-effective with the state’s new incentives, homeowners now need to install batteries in addition to solar panels, but that can cost an additional $10,000 to $20,000 or more.
It’s an easy fix, but it’s an expensive fix,” Murray said. “Because people don’t want to or they can’t afford batteries, unfortunately.”

In a statement, Newsom defended the state’s policies, saying that already this year the state has had nearly 100 days when clean energy has exceeded 100% of demand for some part of the day.
“No other state in America comes close to California’s solar production,” he said. “We’re generating nearly twentyfold the amount of solar as we were a decade ago, powering millions of homes with clean energy. And now we’re adding more batteries faster than ever to help capture that energy to use at night.”

Supporters of the state’s change to the incentives also point to equity concerns, arguing that a shift to solar can raise the cost of energy for those who don’t have it or can’t afford it.

But as California works toward its ambitious clean energy vision, an almost counterintuitive challenge has emerged: The state is, at times, generating more solar energy than it can handle. It’s to the point where loads of clean energy are going to waste.


The phenomenon, which other states are likely to run into as they ramp up their own solar production, has been dubbed the “duck curve.” The belly of the duck is the time of day when solar production can exceed demand. Because solar energy relies on the sun, the curve is often most pronounced on sunny days during the spring, when not as many people are using power and running their air conditioning.

“We get into certain times of the year, in the springtime particularly, when the demand for electricity isn’t that high yet, and we have quite a bit of solar production where, under certain conditions, we actually have more than California can actually use,” said Elliot Mainzer, the CEO of California’s Independent System Operator, which manages 80% of the state’s electricity flow.

“Under those conditions, we take advantage of the significant amount of transmission connectivity that we have to other parts of the West, and we export a lot of that energy for other utilities around the Western United States,” he said.

“And under certain extreme conditions, we actually have to curtail it and turn it off,” he added.

According to Independent System Operator data, in recent years, the amount of renewable energy curtailed, or wasted, has skyrocketed from both oversupply and so-called congestion, when there’s more electricity than the transmission lines in some areas can handle. So far this year, the state has lost out on nearly 2.6 million megawatt-hours of renewable energy — most of it solar — more than enough to power all the homes in San Francisco for a year.

Mainzer said adding transmission lines would help increase the flow of electricity throughout the state and is advocating for permitting reform to make that happen

“When you build a new solar project or you build a new battery or a new wind project or a new geothermal resource, if you don’t have transmission lines available to access that and deliver it to customers, that generation is basically an island. It’s stranded,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has also been pushing to add more batteries to store that excess energy for use during peak-demand times. And state regulators with the California Public Utilities Commission have taken a more controversial approach: drastically cutting financial incentives for homeowners looking to install solar.
 
Dangerous heat wave and wildfires in the West

The move has outraged many in the rooftop solar industry, like Ed Murray, the president of the California Solar and Storage Association, who operates Aztec Solar outside Sacramento. The changes, he said, have been devastating for his business. He said he has laid off 10 employees over the last year.



“Sales went flat, because nobody wanted it anymore,” Murray said. “It was not productive or cost-effective to do solar, and we were left figuring out what do we do now.”





According to the California Solar and Storage Association, residential solar installations have dropped by 66% in the first quarter of 2024 compared with the same period in 2022. The trade group estimates that since the state changed the incentive structure, known as net metering, 17,000 green jobs have been lost statewide.



To make it cost-effective with the state’s new incentives, homeowners now need to install batteries in addition to solar panels, but that can cost an additional $10,000 to $20,000 or more.

“It’s an easy fix, but it’s an expensive fix,” Murray said. “Because people don’t want to or they can’t afford batteries, unfortunately.”



In a statement, Newsom defended the state’s policies, saying that already this year the state has had nearly 100 days when clean energy has exceeded 100% of demand for some part of the day.



“No other state in America comes close to California’s solar production,” he said. “We’re generating nearly twentyfold the amount of solar as we were a decade ago, powering millions of homes with clean energy. And now we’re adding more batteries faster than ever to help capture that energy to use at night.”



Supporters of the state’s change to the incentives also point to equity concerns, arguing that a shift to solar can raise the cost of energy for those who don’t have it or can’t afford it.





In making the announcement in 2022, Public Utilities Commission member John Reynolds said net metering “has left an incredible legacy and brought solar to hundreds of thousands of Californians, but it is also profoundly expensive for non-solar customers and was overdue for reform.”



Murray disputes that argument and says most of his clients have made annual salaries of $50,000 to $60,000, often financed through loans at a time when interest rates have also skyrocketed.



Given California’s role as a leader in solar energy, Murray believes other states are watching and may follow suit.



“I’m hearing from Florida, Arizona, Minnesota, Massachusetts that they’re looking at copying the rules, that they’re going to change the rules of the game,” he said. “They’re upset because it’s going to hurt across the board.”



“As we go, California goes, so, usually, does the rest of the country,” he added.



It’s an example that as California goes all in on its historic clean energy transition — with a goal of achieving 100% clean energy by 2045 — new challenges are casting a shadow on the path to a renewable future.

“No way we’re going to get there without rooftop solar,” Murray said. “Electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric range tops — this is not going to happen without solar. Period.”
 
Top Back Refresh