• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Who's gone Solar

GAJ said:
My friend is looking to add Solar + battery.

Worst so far was Sunrun; no wonder Costco dropped them as a provider.
Click to expand...

Once we no longer get nem 2 benefits, it will probably make sense to get a battery backup or two.
 
bojangle said:
No retroactive contract modifications at all!

The state energy providers, with PG&E in particular, have the highest rates in the country, by far. The companies have made huge profits and they also tend to pay very high salaries.

A good start would be to require that a public utility be non-profit.
Click to expand...

SF is trying to buy back the utility poles and revert to a county/city wide power model similar to Santa Clara. PG&E is of course fighting it, but it will happen sooner or later. I'm hardly an expert but it kind of seems to me like we might be headed to a future where grids shrink back to a municipal-level. I don't want or need to be on the same grid as the Sierra foothills or Humboldt, let them pay for their own grid.
 
mercurial said:
SF is trying to buy back the utility poles and revert to a county/city wide power model similar to Santa Clara. PG&E is of course fighting it, but it will happen sooner or later. I'm hardly an expert but it kind of seems to me like we might be headed to a future where grids shrink back to a municipal-level. I don't want or need to be on the same grid as the Sierra foothills or Humboldt, let them pay for their own grid.
Click to expand...


This data looks a little old, but it shows how much significantly cheaper Santa Clara is providing electricity to it's residents compared to PG&E.

I'm guessing that with such a small service area, they don't have the same kind of long distance high voltage power infastructure that PG&E had to maintain, so it's probably not an apples for apples comparison. But clearly our system with PG&E and the other large California power companies had not been working well for the residents. Something needs to change.
 
I think if PG&E raises their rates and pays their executives more money that would definitely serve the public better.

/S
 
bojangle said:
I'm guessing that with such a small service area, they don't have the same kind of long distance high voltage power infastructure that PG&E had to maintain, so it's probably not an apples for apples comparison. But clearly our system with PG&E and the other large California power companies had not been working well for the residents. Something needs to change.
Click to expand...

well yea that's exactly it.. why would an urban area want to pay for expensive transmission infrastructure that mostly serves to connect low density areas in the state?

Current SVP average rate is 0.175, compared to PG&E at .425.
 
mercurial said:
well yea that's exactly it.. why would an urban area want to pay for expensive transmission infrastructure that mostly serves to connect low density areas in the state?

Current SVP average rate is 0.175, compared to PG&E at .425.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, it's not directly beneficial to an urban area. Looking at the bigger picture, I can see why the large interconnected grid is beneficial on a statewide/nation wide level. We wouldn't have the level of advanced modern society if we didn't provide utilities to low density areas.

In theory, our interconnected grid with large providers should lead to economies of scale with the large infastructure creation and maintenance being spread over the whole population.

I think the biggest issue is that utility companies that enjoy a state sponsored monopoly should be required to be non-profit. We need an effective CPUC. Much more money needed to be invested in the infastructure over decades, rather than huge profits. And while I don't have a huge issue with large salaries per se, PG&E's large salaries seem to be a symptom of them being able to live beyond what should be their means, as they can simply request and receive rate hikes any time they want to cover their ever increasing expenses.
 
bojangle said:
Once we no longer get nem 2 benefits, it will probably make sense to get a battery backup or two.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

My estimated late July true up is $550; same time last year the estimate was $40 and it ended up being $225.

Might have gone a bit too far in moving more towards electric.
 
bojangle said:
Well, clearly, it's not directly beneficial to an urban area. Looking at the bigger picture, I can see why the large interconnected grid is beneficial on a statewide/nation wide level. We wouldn't have the level of advanced modern society if we didn't provide utilities to low density areas.
Click to expand...

So this is just my opinion, but it feels to me like that perspective is a bit dated. Solar efficiencies continue to grow, battery prices continue to drop. I think it opens up the paradigm of having microgrids where you grossly overprovision solar capacity (so peak production periods you might very well be at 500% of you city's needs) and then large battery systems and maybe a small natgas plant to bridge those winter lows when sunlight is sporadic and in short supply. It doesn't totally remove fossil fuels from the equation, but it cuts usage by possibly 90%, and it also brings a much greater level of redundancy and resilience. When your grid is having a problem, it's pretty likely that the grids the next towns over are still running and fine. Whereas if you have one unified state/nation grid, it's just too complicated and too much room for failure cascades, not to mention vulnerability to adversarial nations and terrorists. I don't want to live in a world where Russia can hack some key transmission point in Montana and the lights go off in California for a week (no idea if that hypothetical makes any sense, but you get my drift.)

As for low density areas - they too will get to take advantage of cheap solar. But without infrastructure subsidy, some of these areas might have low/no power for a few weeks of the year. They will need to devolve into even lower-level co-op arrangements, with perhaps a neighborhood with a shared generator whose upkeep they all participate in. It's like the Oregon Trail, you wanna live in the middle of nowhere, you work with your community to survive. Choose your adventure. It's all very American, IMO.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
Well, clearly, it's not directly beneficial to an urban area. Looking at the bigger picture, I can see why the large interconnected grid is beneficial on a statewide/nation wide level. We wouldn't have the level of advanced modern society if we didn't provide utilities to low density areas.

In theory, our interconnected grid with large providers should lead to economies of scale with the large infastructure creation and maintenance being spread over the whole population.
Click to expand...
As an example, it allows SVP to buy power generated on the Columbia river up in Washington.
 
flips21 said:
As an example, it allows SVP to buy power generated on the Columbia river up in Washington.
Click to expand...

Isn't that mostly just an accounting trick? They are getting a credit for power that is provided from a generator in Washington that they partially own/lease, but the power that their customers receive mostly comes from far more local sources.
 
mercurial said:
Isn't that mostly just an accounting trick? They are getting a credit for power that is provided from a generator in Washington that they partially own/lease, but the power that their customers receive mostly comes from far more local sources.
Click to expand...
Yes, their power comes from local sources which has been predominantly been paid for by PG&E customers. But, I wouldn't call it a trick. It is more akin to filling a widely shared reservoir at a distant point. As long as the transmission lines that cross the rural western United States are not overloaded, where the power is generated doesn't matter. That allows California to buy more green power from the Columbia River instead of having to burn natural gas at local plants to generate power. Seeing It as an accounting trick sort of misses the bigger picture. Without the infrastructure, SVP could not buy it.

If you take a look at SVP's power sources, you will see that other than a few biomass plants, some natural gas peakers and small solar installations, SVP gets most of its power from rural parts of California with some Washington and Oregon.
 
flips21 said:
Yes, their power comes from local sources which has been predominantly been paid for by PG&E customers. But, I wouldn't call it a trick. It is more akin to filling a widely shared reservoir at a distant point. As long as the transmission lines that cross the rural western United States are not overloaded, where the power is generated doesn't matter. That allows California to buy more green power from the Columbia River instead of having to burn natural gas at local plants to generate power. Seeing It as an accounting trick sort of misses the bigger picture. Without the infrastructure, SVP could not buy it.

If you take a look at SVP's power sources, you will see that other than a few biomass plants, some natural gas peakers and small solar installations, SVP gets most of its power from rural parts of California with some Washington and Oregon.
Click to expand...

And I take it they don't own the grid that brings them that power, PG&E does?
 
"It is more akin to filling a widely shared reservoir at a distant point" is it really physically like that, though? I was under the impression that from an infra perspective, its more like a series of ponds that have a hodge-podge of sluice gates connecting to each other. But from an accounting perspective, it takes the appearance of a reservoir.

Regardless, I guess I return to my main point, solar and battery tech is increasingly a game changer. You don't need to intelligently load shift if you are overproducing locally, and have the ability to store it. I have an older 19 panel 4.25 kw array that already takes care of almost all of my power needs shoulder season, about half in Winter, and about 1/3 in summer (we have a super inefficient 1980s era central AC - I just installed an intelligent economizer ventilation system which should bring summer coverage to 100%.) In 5 years, we are going to have panels that make 3X the power per footprint, and batteries are going to be CHEAP - for less than $10,000 in incremental spend, I will be able to disconnect from the grid completely, if I so choose. I would be willing to spend a modest monthly amount for access to a local community storage bank, that can give me power for those occasions when my system is down for maintenance, and has a natural gas generator for time periods of unusually rainy/cloudy weather so I don't have to run my own?
 
i'm still convinced solar is a bandaid on the tumor that is pge. agree wrt comments about forcing them into a non profit and giving cpuc some teeth
 
My first true up was - $863.26. After that was wholesale exchanged, .003c per kwh (SCE), and with the next month (1 of 12) charges it turned into - $124.32.

As of right now i am month 6 of 12 and sitting at - $455.76

This year will do my best to crank that a.c. to sit as close to even at true up.
 
As expected.

This will take a very long time for the industry to recover from; they could have done a 10 year phaseout but no.

I'd post the link but it names some politicians named in it so I won't.

In May 2025, the House Ways and Means Committee introduced a measure that would remove 30% solar tax credit for homeowner-owned solar and battery systems at the end of 2025. That measure was passed by the full House on May 22 and is headed to the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
GAJ said:
As expected.

This will take a very long time for the industry to recover from; they could have done a 10 year phaseout but no.

I'd post the link but it names some politicians named in it so I won't.
Click to expand...

Maybe they'll introduce a tax credit for home diesel or coal fired mini plants.
 
I think it's probably ok, equipment prices are dropping even as equipment efficiency rises. At some point the 30% credit just becomes milk for the installation companies. I'm not even convinced we should have installation companies, it should be something that can be split between a roofer and an electrician?

I just went to a "wholesale" solar site and checked prices - /w enphase microinverters and 400w panels, looks like a 7kw system is around $5000?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top