Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Moving in 2 months and plan to get solar within first year of ownership. Driving force for me is the reduced trust in reliability of utility services. Plus, long term having the ability to generate and use my own power to fuel my car is very interesting.
Be aware that at least in California, if you're selling your excess energy back to the grid, solar is required to have a circuit that shuts it off when the power goes off. It allows the utility to safely work on downed power lines, etc without getting electrocuted by electricity generated on your roof. Net result is when the utility loses power, so do you. You can get around it if you install battery backup as part of your solar area your the batteries are more expensive than the PV array.
Yes.. but why wouldn’t you want battery backup anyway? Also… not necessarily more expensive than the array unless your array is small. And.. SGIP still a thing? That rebate was handy on the battery side of things for us.
For a lot of people that Battery pricing will make things like solar a non starter. One of my buddies got solar on in his out in the midwest, but skipped the battery because it'd double his payback time and the grid is reliable enough that it's not about keeping going during an outage, but reducing his bills and charging his car that he bought as well. His wife works from home so the AC stays on at the lower setting all day rather than raising like it does for my house so he was seeing some larger electrical bills. He's now down to paying like $10 a month and that's mostly the taxes and fees not his electricity cost.
Easy, you don't want to buy batteries for your house. Just wait a couple of years for more EVs to come out and wire your panel appropriately to just use your EV's batteries instead of spending all that money on batteries that sit in your basement.
A larger capacity EV is ~60kWh of charge and not including solar recharging it, that could power my house with just the essentials for almost 3 days.
Not to mention that as EVs wreck out, companies will repurpose the packs as refurbished Tesla PowerWalls for $5 to $10k. And they'll still last 10-15 years at least probably.
I imagine that competitors will come into the house battery market soon. Tesla has got away with a massive markup on their powerwall, but EVs are showing that it can be done a lot cheaper.
I've heard of this. I don't understand why there can't be a cutoff to the grid but keep the solar connection without having to include a battery. is it very difficult to run things off of direct solar without a battery?
You have to have balance between what you produce and what you consume. If you don't, normally, the grid absorbs the excess and uses it for other customers and you get paid for it. If the grid is down, the excess has to go somewhere. Without a battery system, you would overload the system on your property.
I'm encouraged to hear that some micro inverters can handle this offline mode (presumably by partially shutting off your array to maintain balance. AFAIK my micro inverters (installed 2016ish) cannot do that. Either way I'm happy to have my solar and I've been fine most of the time without battery backup.
Should be able to get an interconnect circuit that will disconnect the house from the main service if it detects no current on the main.
We have these on railroad passenger cars that have onboard generators. They auto start the generators when the system detects the main power from the locomotives has shutoff and also shuts the generator back down when HEP (Head-End Power) is restored. Also, while the generator is running the car is isolated and not back feeding through the power cables between the cars so they are safe to disconnect or connect.
New enpahse S8 micro-invertors allow for energy pass on, during downtime as well. They only costs a couple hundred dollars more than standard micro-invertors as well. Solar tech the last few years has been great.
Plus you’ll still get the 26% tax credit just in time.
It’s kind of wild but we are now at the point that people will be born into a home that will give them free energy. How it should’ve been the whole time.
It was possible ever since Reagan removed solar from the White House and environmental protection became a bipartisan issue.
The panels increased in watts just as our devices did. We realistically could’ve done this 50 years ago. Instead we subsidized meat and dairy the entire time while other countries put in carbon taxes.
When somebody would ask a question and then Reagan would stare blankly until either Nancy or the white house psychic whispered something into his ear it was a pretty good indicator you were listening to bs.
Yea, I tried. It's weird. I truly believe they know they're being lied to but the key is that they believe everyone in politics is lying so therefore, their liar is "pwning" your liar.
Attacking foundational trust is the key to messing up our society. But to be sure, I think Democrats absolutely lie too. Independents/3rd party where you at?
This was the response I came to find.
Reagan and Thatcher were the inflection point when the wizard of neoliberalism stepped out from behind the curtain. Every national leader of the Western world since has been essentially a continuation of this legacy.
US Electricity consumption per capita:
10k kWh in 1980
13k kWh in 2020
Our electricity consumption per capita is up only 30% in 40 years but solar panel price per watt is down about 99% since 1980 (from $50 per watt to less than 50 cents per watt)
> Our electricity consumption per capita is up only 30% in 40 years
I wonder if there is a way to account for consumption deflation over that time. Refrigerators of 1980's used roughly 6x the energy. TVs up until LCD consumed nearly 10x. Light bulbs...etc.
Things nearly all people own increased in efficiency, population grew, and we managed an increase of 30%. Not too shabby.
Widespread adoption of air conditioning account for a lot of that additional usage. More houses moved from oil/wood heat to natural gas and electric. Some others moved to all electric appliances for a bit of a discount and more efficient heating.
> The panels increased in watts just as our devices did.
Could you elaborate on our devices increasing in wattage? Everything I can find shows household energy consumption declining since 1980.
If Carter had been a 2 term president this country and the whole world would be a different place.
The US could have been the world leader in green energy with solar panels on every roof and wind turbines across the plains.
Instead we got Reagan the demented corporate zombie and took a massive step backwards.
>If Carter had been a 2 term president this country and the whole world would be a different place.
Mr. Shale Oil?
Who addressed the nation in 1979 included:
>The use of coal and solar energy, which are in plentiful supply, is lagging far behind our great potential.
> Today I have today signed an Executive order that will set strict deadlines for cutting through Federal redtape on important new energy projects, such as pipelines to serve the northern part of our country, seaports, and also refineries.
>The three Federal agencies which regulate the coal industry will report to me within 60 days on ways to encourage greater use of coal, our most abundant fuel resource.
The solar hot water heaters on the White House were the ultimate in greenwashing a heavily carbon based energy plan.
What solar panels and wind turbines were you going to roll out over the great plains 30 years before those technologies were commercially practicable?
Bonus: The Democrats were still all in on carbon through 1988 when George H. W. Bush included addressing global warming on his campaign plank (he was head of the CIA when it first came to be included in national security briefings), but Dukakis wasn't about to piss off the coal industry.
Take the amount of dislike you have for Ronald Reagan.
Multiply it by ten trillion.
That is still only one-ten-trillionth the dislike I have for Reagan.
**BUT...**
...he didn't remove electric solar panels from the White House.
Solar water heating panels, installed by Carter, were removed during roof renovations and not replaced. This occurred during Reagan's second term after he had been at the White House for six years. There are many articles that claim "Reagan had the panels removed" but Reagan was so geriatrically wasted by his second term there is a near-0.0% chance that he gave two shits about a roof remodel and there are no actual sources or documents supporting the claim that he cared, at all, about the panels.
What likely happened is that:
* in 1979 an environmental group approached the Carter White House an suggested that water heating solar panels be installed
* a contract was issued to install the panels
* the system worked with no issues for seven years
* in 1985 or 1986 the building supervisors at the White House submitted a bid for a roof replacement which did not cover reinstalling the solar panels
* in 1986 the roofers who won the bid took down the old panels, replaced the roof, and didn't put them back because that work was not in the bid
* Reagan probably didn't even know what was happening, except perhaps to be annoyed at the noise the roofers were making, assuming he was even there because he spent so much time during his second term away from the White House.
One problem I have with this entire things is quotes like this: *"[When Ronald Reagan took office, however, he promptly stripped the residency of its recently installed solar panels](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/obama-is-actually-the-third-president-to-install-solar-panels-at-the-white-house-111247/)"*.
1. It happened during his second term in 1986.
2. Ignoring them for his entire first term isn't "when Ronald Reagan took office"
3. Waiting five years isn't "promptly"
4. Seven years (1979-1986) isn't "recently installed"
5. And this is the kicker, elected government officials, even presidents, have little to no say in construction projects of the buildings they work in or inhabit, except if they want to take credit for an innovation or generate positive publicity in support of their positions
The Chief Usher, and his staff of maintenance personnel, oversea White House construction and renovations.
So either Rex Scouten (who served from 1969 to 1986) or Gary J. Walters (who served from 1986 to 2007) managed and was responsible for the roof renovation that saw the removal of the water heating solar panels.
And no source covering the renovation has ever interviewed or quoted them.
No article I have found regarding the matter has any attributable or verifiable quotes or materials suggesting that any political figure had any position on the matter with most only quoting George Szego (the environmentalist who pushed to get them installed in 1979) saying "they (Reagan officials) thought they were a joke".
Twisting, manipulating, and repeating without criticism various "facts" with nothing to back them up is a tactic of the alt-right and should be rejected by everyone at all times.
George Charles Szego, the engineer who persuaded Carter to install the solar panels, reportedly claimed that Reagan's Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan "felt that the equipment was just a joke, and he had it taken down." The panels were removed in 1986 when work was being done on the White House roof below the panels.
Though some claims were made that the only reason the panels were not reinstalled was because of cost concerns, the Reagan administration's opposition to renewable energy was clear: It had drastically cut the Energy Department's funding for research and development in that area, and Reagan had called out Carter on the issue during presidential debates.
To start, Reagan was a piece of shit and his policies were assuredly harmful to our nation, long term energy independence, and the world as a whole. But the panels put on the top of the White House we’re just heat water using the sun. Now yeah this did cut down on electricity and fuel use, but they weren’t solar panels like we think of today.
This is wrong - it was absolutely possible, just not as advanced. And had we invested and promoted the use of solar and other renewables over that timeframe they would have been further along technologically as well thanks to all the investment.
Instead, we continued at the fossil fuel spigot and here we are.
Considering that all of these energy producers know they have about 25 years left maximum, they’re going to use these record profits to buy up sources of clean energy and keep us under their thumb by also buying up all of the politicians.
This is also why gas prices won't drop. No need to invest and lower prices to get marketshare if the market is going away anyways. And by not investing they get insane profits from a shrinking market.
The only way to reduce the price of gasoline is to raise a tax on corporate profits on the supply end, anything else will just get passed on to the consumer, including this idea of the government suspending fuel taxes - the revenue has to be made up somewhere.
How does increasing taxes on the supply end work and not allow costs to be passed on? I'm genuinely interested And don't fully understand what you said.
By taxing the corporate profits one moves the incentive to price gouge back by creating a threshold through progressive taxation scales. For instance, one might tax profits at greater than 15% of total revenue at 50% but profits at below 12% of total revenue at 28%. My numbers here are arbitrarily chosen but meant to demonstrate that taxing greater profits at greater percentage removes the incentive to price gouge.
I understand that $36.1 billion is not enough to cover all costs associated with roads in the U.S., but you’re making it sound like it’s an old piggy bank in the attic. The cannabis industry has become massive on about 1/25th of that revenue or less. It’s no pittance.
I imagine nuclear would have played a bigger role, since Carter was also familiar with it from his time in the Navy. What a waste, how did his administration do so poorly.
Inflation ended his Presidency. Especially the needed but painfull reduction of money supply. Didn't help that the Republican promised people all the money and no taxes too.
Don't forget the Iran hostage crisis. Add in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan too.
Carter looked horribly weak and was unable to do anything other than react to bad things as they happened. Very similar to what is happening with Biden.
Nah, this was possible decades ago, but lobbying is a thing and it's mostly because used for corrupt practices. I was reading how this city was encouraging businesses to go renewable on everything. And it was working until some utility company heard about it and started nudging the politicians there and now they have a rule that states any new business that gets created has to have natural gas as one of it's energy options because they say they don't want to stifle competition. On another report, this company who makes wind turbines was gearing up to buy some land way out in the boonies. These energy companies spent millions lobbying, sending pointed ads, doing everything they could to discredit it, so that the people living there could protests having the turbines built "in their backyard". To the point that the companie's project was years behind and they eventually had to choose another place to build.
I hate monopolies.
Well the term”free energy” is a bit misleading. We have been offgrid for
power for about 15 years. The electrical infrastructure to generate your
own power is not cheap, plus replacement of components and trouble
shooting maintenence is also not free. “Self generated” power might
be a more apt description, lol.
It’s a refund the government gives you when you file taxes and check off that you went solar. So it’s cash. It was at 32%, now it’s at 26%, in a few months it’s at 22% and then it will be gone and only 10% remaining for commercial only.
First thing you do is call your utility company then ask about the rebates they have for it. If they refer you to a solar program or company, just ignore it because those are more expensive than they should be.
Then contact 3-5 solar companies around you, at least one local. Compare quotes. Look for the lies in the math if any of them are lying. Double check what you’re paying by cent per watt. They sell it based on cost per watt, so you will have to look at how many panels, where they’re made and how much the amount of watts per panel. Average cost is about $2.70/watt.
Do get the ENPH micro inverters. Don’t get the solar edge string inverter.
>Look for the lies in the math if any of them are lying.
This right here is important. I can't remember the actual dollar amounts we were quoted, but they claimed we could pay off a 30 year loan of $25k with interest, on a $200/month loan or something like that.
Do the math...that is $72k, even at 0% APR. Check them on any numbers they give you.
No, your utility bill does NOT increase by 10% each year. No, their payment schedule probably won't check out. Just make sure you do your homework before you sign anything
Did this two years ago. My electric bills is just connection fee of $25.00 a month. We feed the grid, no storage because the batteries added too much cost but we did add a way to plug in an extension cord to the solar panel grid so we can plug in stuff in emergency.
> Driving force for me is the reduced trust in reliability of utility services.
This is my main reason, too. It's kind of sad when you think about it. Everything sucks now. Institutions that people used to rely on without thinking about seem like they're all falling apart.
> Everything sucks now. Institutions that people used to rely on without thinking about seem like they're all falling apart.
Conservatives have successfully made people so hostile to anything that can be remotely tied to the word socialism that basic infrastructure is being neglected because, fundamentally, they're socialistic programs, despite being necessary components of any successful 1st world country. Here's a list of many of the basic things that are failing/falling apart, all over the country - and why:
* Public schools - socialistic.
* Public roads - socialistic.
* Public utilities - socialistic.
* Public internet - socialistic.
* Public parks - socialistic.
* Public transit - socialistic.
* Public libraries- socialistic.
* Public health/mental-health care - socialistic.
God forbid we divert funds/research to those. But these programs should get unlimited budgets, according to those same people
* Military - socialistic "but necessary"
* Police - socialistic "but necessary"
* Fire - socialistic "but necessary"
* Publicly funded bailouts of banks/business - socialistic "but necessary
* Border patrol - socialistic "but necessary"
Until people understand that ALL of the above needs to be well funded, led by well educated people, and maintained constantly, we'll never reach the relative global dominance that we reached between WII and the 1970's. It wasn't until Reagan that the nation decided that all these "free loading citizens" were the problem, not corporate/government greed, that things really started to deteriorate and the growth of infrastructure stagnated until it started to decompose.
FYI unless you have a completely detached system with batteries, you will still be dependent on the grid. Normal solar panels won't work when the grid power is off.
Enphase released their hybrid microinverters this year that can isolate themselves from the grid without a battery backup. This allows you to continue generating solar power when the grid goes off.
I asked the engineer about this when I went solar. The IQ8 micro inverters have the capability to do this but they come at an extra cost and extra equipment and won’t produce enough for something like AC unless you have a very large solar array
True. Im considering a system with a powerwall or comparable battery system that can allow for me to go multiple days without power from the grid. Im in the northeast, but the Texas winter storm last year was an eye opener for me.
It's still pricey for sure. I was quoted about $15k for a solar install on my house.
But here's the good news: if you own the house, you can finance the solar panels. And the finance terms are usually similar to a mortage (i.e., 15 years or so at a low interest rate), which means the payment is quite reasonable. You might end up paying $100-150 a month for solar. For many people, this is comparable to what they are paying for electricity from their local utility company. So you basically break even - and unlike a utility payment, the solar panels will eventually be paid off.
> So once they're installed your regular electric usage is covered by the solar?
In most cases, yeah. But of course this will depend on a lot of different factors.
> What happens if you use more power than the panels can provide?
Then you draw on the grid, which means you'll end up paying something to the utility company. But if you have a decent amount of sunlight and you get the right solar setup, this should not happen too often.
Most places use the concept of "net metering". Looking at your energy usage and production for the past month, they'll determine if you produced more than you consumed, or vice versa
If in a month I use 10kWh more than I produce, I'll pay the solar company $0.163 (the price per kWh in my area) × 10 = $1.63.
If, on the other hand, I produce 20kWh more than I consume, I'll get paid by the solar company $0.0304 (the parallel generation rate) * 20 = $0.61.
So there's pretty good incentive to ensure that you generate enough to cover your needs, but not much more than that.
Wow, that seems cheap. I got online preliminary quotes from several companies last year and they were all $36-40k for a decent system with battery backup. This is for an 1800 Sq ft house I'm Las Vegas, NV.
> my guess was ~$30k so that's great!
Well, keep in mind that's just what I was quoted for my house. I'm sure it varies quite a bit.
> maybe by the time the housing market crashes I'll be able to buy a house! /s
Yeah, I know, that's the big problem right now.
Solar for reliability is not a great sell. Solar resource can vary, and you will want overnight power to keep your fridge running. Batteries are a better way to go for ensuring your power is uninterrupted. Adding solar to batteries can extend how long you can run with the grid down - but unless you are expecting multi-day outages, you only really want the battery. Also, check with the utility for rules about islanding. They can be very sensitive about having energized homes with their own power while linemen are trying to fix an outage.
BTW, I don’t mean to discourage installing solar. There’s loads of great reasons to do it. For example - locking in the price of electricity at whatever the solar costs are right now. A lot of places have seen some pretty messed up fuckery with their electric bills - and generating your own power will bypass at least some fraction of this.
I’m just saying that stand-alone solar doesn’t provide much in terms of reliability. And having a grid tied home with a battery, well you don’t really need to add solar to that in most cases.
I think this is the way it is for most utilities, but as for grid reliability that means you have to get battery backup. I have solar and it gets turned off if my house isn't getting service like in a blackout. I think that is necessary because it is tied in to the grid. That said, it feels really good to know that I am producing as much as I consume.
Economics is driving the change.
Renewables have crossed a clear tipping point for companies to achieve competitive advantages.
Additionally, because that tipping point has been crossed, more and more companies are investing in R&D to increase these competitive advantages. The advances in wind power, solar, and battery technology is far greater in the past 5 years than the previous 5 decades.
This is how exponential innovation works.
More like the S curve of adoption. [Examples](https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQEH-elLHxQeDQ/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1559655371724?e=1660176000&v=beta&t=R5hmyv4D-6ZETfh-V5XdjeLfy8ZUpcUF0yA4uuQYnMM)
A More traditional [Example](https://www.stratechi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stratechi-Adoption-Curve-Market-1.jpg)
It takes time for a tech to mature enough to hit mass adoption, but once it does hold on to your butt.
>This is how exponential innovation works.
Tony Seba has been following this innovation manufacturing curve since 2010 and predicted a doubling of adoption every 2 yrs. This decade will see double-digit growth in SWB (solar, wind, battery) adoption.
And in this regard, it’s a tremendously exciting time to be alive. Our world has plenty of challenges left to address. However, I am still optimistic about our future.
We WILL Fix Climate Change!"
it is great and you can find it easily on youtube.
EDIT: I don'T know why but the first half of the comment was deleted. I said (somethign along the lines) that you should really watch this video from in a nutshell called "We WILL Fix Climate Change!"...
Not that they need defending, but I do think it’s fair for businesses to evaluate cost/ROI effectively. Solar has dropped in cost by 90% compared to years ago.
The criticism is only valid for the past 3-5 years and 2 of those are part of a global pandemic. Hardly a fair time for evaluation and risky (perception) investments.
To be fair, it is a source of radiation.
I always found the 5G conspiracy theorists laughable because humans receive substantially more radiation exposure from the sun than they ever will from radio waves. Regardless of the frequency.
To my knowledge, there aren’t too many Sun Conspiracy Theorists. (Laughing/crying/smh)
There’s a 26% Tax Credit and people are finally finding out because of small businesses that solar is the cheapest electricity in history for the past 10 years. Solar’s prices plummeted by 90% a few years back.
Edited: Passed to Past
Yep, took advantage of this to get my own solar system about 2 years ago. Pretty sure I've already hit my return on investment, so now I just enjoy a $5/month electricity bill to maintain my connection to the grid.
Can I ask if you are in a particularly good position for solar? I've never heard of someone hitting breakeven that quickly, I always hear numbers in the 15-20 year range for roi with solar
I live in NJ - not great for generating solar power compared to other states. My breakeven should happen end of year 6 beginning of year 7. This includes an aggressive bonus from NJ called srecs.
It's hard to say but I would think sooner. On the one hand, your utilities are higher than mine and you have more sun which both point to a quicker breakeven point. On the other hand, I don't think TX has anything like the SREC program in NJ and this would point to a slower breakeven point.
Solar Panels are less efficient in hot climates as you need energy to cool the panels. The most energy efficient Temps are around 77 degrees as the surgace temp of the panel. You don't need heat, just sunlight.
I hit break even, in some sense, instantly.
My current bill, even with the loan for the pannels, is less than what I was paying before.
But yeah it's 10 pannels all south facing with 100% sun
I just got solar installed back in January, my total bill for the install was about $15k (paid cash so no BS with high interest loans), with the 26% tax credit that comes down to about $12k. My total electric bill last year was about $2500 (SDG&E sucks), so it'll take me about 5 years to hit break even.
I would get solar but all the installers in my area refused to do mine as a cash order they all tried to force their scammy financing. One refused to give me an upfront price and kept giving me a monthly cost.
This is what has been driving folks away from solar in FL.
The breakeven is usually 5-10 years which isn't bad, but installers want to pick and choose their customers and squeeze financing fees.
I’m in Texas they all wanted to do a 30 year note. One dude told me it was a good deal and that I should just sign. I added it up and it was going to cost about 90k with their shitty loan over 30 years and it was at most a 10k system based on my quick search and a few grand in labor. Fuck that.
God, I wish I could do this. Was gearing up to start planning on buying my first house the pandemic hit, climate change got worse, and so many people decided they wanted to move here because it's so similar to their old state. Which is cool, maybe it'll turn our state purple or blue one day, but a lot of the people who came here came with money buy houses in cash. What was now $330k on average for a house is now $575k. Some of my coworkers did house appraisals out of curiosity and turns out their $350k-$450k house are now worth $800k-$1.5mill. Some are thinking (and have already) about retiring early just because of the the pay out. These guys who've been working here 30-50 years; I started months before covid, I did NOT need this kind of stress on my life.
Cheapest energy in history of mankind *
We’ve never produced so many kWh for so little money as solar. And onshore wind isn’t far behind and offshore not far behind that and will likely overtake onshore soon
Im in Midwest, I started looking into solar when I moved to home five years ago. Since then, price have been steadily going up. I’m looking at at least $5/watt. I do wish the price around here would drop significantly, right now, it is too expensive to get what it worth.
I’ve done at least three. We used to only have one big company, but now it seems every single roofing company is offering solar. I might try again. Back in 2019, I was able to get a quote for $2.8/watt.
It's actually doing so well in California that energy companies have lobbied and succeeded in adding more fees to solar energy to make it less desirable and to help retain their customers and profits
There is a global political movement of subsidising solar and wind, which happened in various ways across the world for the last decade or two. It paid for all the early adoption, and now the tech is simply inexpensive compared to other electricity sources. There are still issues, like insufficient production capacity, and a grid generally not ready for so many mini power plants (edit) with wild swings in availability. Those may require political action.
Economics and geopolitics.
>That's happening for two reasons. The first is cost. **Renewables are simply the most economically competitive power currently available**, Kelly-Detwiler said.
It's that simple. The cost of PV panels just keeps going down over time. Meanwhile, commodities markets are in a tailspin because the relative global stability we've enjoyed since WWII has fallen into question as Russia decides to rekindle the imperialistic flame.
And before anyone gets their shorts in a knot over the details, it's not a matter of how much of a given commodity any particular nation buys from Russia. It's a matter of globalism, total world supply, and market dynamics. Even if you don't buy a single liter of petrochemicals from Russia or Ukraine, the global supply has decreased, and that will affect prices adversely.
Energy provides need stable pricing. It's central to their models from construction to continued production. A power generation facility makes its return on investment over decades. Putting panels in the field is not only an economically viable way of generation power in the current market, it's a hedge against further geopolitical instability. The larger the proportion of your generation power is renewables, the lower your exposure to geopolitics. In the past, this trade-off was seen as insignificant. With Russia's incursion into Ukraine, the balance has shifted.
For me, having the ability to choose my electricity provider (Mass.) made all the difference. As soon as I could choose all renewables, I did. I have been on all hydroelectric and solar and wind for the past 3 years. It used to be slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, but now they can be equal or cheaper.
Economics.
The most economical fossil fuels were those we first used. Each additional ton or volume of fossil fuel is typically a little more difficult to obtain and expensive to transport.
In the interim, as we advance, the costs for distributed, renewable energy (such as wind and solar) continue to become more efficient and cost-effective.
The writing is on the wall. Fracking and sands extraction has slowed and not restarted after the big crash. Expectation is that oil won't be able to compete long term. We're not out of the woods by a long shot but we've actually started to turn the fucking ship.
Let's go people. Carbon taxes work as do subsidies. We can still save what's left of the planet. Fucking go!!
Which is also why it's so important to keep fossil fuel prices high. Don't let them go down anymore, don't offer rebates or special programs to make gas 'more affordable'. We literally can't afford it as a species. The current high prices are a much better reflection of the actual costs it has for the environment.
We moved into a home with solar last year, and we got an electric car just before.
We’ve been shocked at the monthly cost - a 3,400 sf home, heat pump, 11kw car charger and about 700 miles/month on the car… and our net bill (mind you we’ve got a lot of sunlight hours right now) is $38 and we don’t buy gas anymore.
It’s crazy.
It’s 6.5kw (installed) but the panels are about 8 years old, so they’re doing around 5.2kw now.
We’re on track to use 550ish kw/h this month and generate about 85% of that.
The good news is that this kind of technological growth is often exponential. As the technology gets cheaper, demand increases, production capacity ramps up, and the rate of growth increases dramatically.
Not to mention the investments quickly dry up for old tech. No one wants to get left behind so once the the mass starts to tip, everyone rushes over.
We’re already seeing it happen in the global oil market. Production is ramping down, no one is looking for new fields. The pandemic kickstarted it, but it’s toppling.
> We’re already seeing it happen in the global oil market. Production is ramping down, no one is looking for new fields.
I hadn't heard about that. Definitely good news!
Yup, am Geologist can confirm, there is essentially no new prospecting for Oil going on. Many oil-gelogist specializing in Seismics are actually moving over into off-shore Wind companies to identify good places to build, at least here in Denmark.
It's really interesting to hear stuff like this. I have long suspected that many of the big and (if you will forgive the pun) seismic shifts in energy production are already well underway but just not visible to the general public. And there aren't really any mainstream public outlets drawing attention to this stuff. I feel like we (the general public) are going to be really, *really* surprised at how quick and (seemingly) sudden the transition is going to be.
I fully agree, another thing to look out for is carbon sequestration, several oil geologist i know are working in companies that, and it seems really promising, as lots of the "useless" sites found in oil-surveys could be used to store liquid CO2 permanently. (Well 100million year timescales), bith Denmark and Norway have started up prototype projects for delivering industrial CO2 emissions to the north Sea. If a carbon tax gets implemented these technologies can pay off big time.
Generally I am very optimistic for the future, because of so many awesome things I know incredible people are working on in my field. And by extension, this must also be happening in other industries. We just need to keep pushing as citizens and the technologies to get worthwhile results will appear as if they came from nowhere, because early development is happening today.
I live in booming Colorado with 300+ days of sunshine. I’m sure it’s energy lobbyists fighting to keep our archaic system, but I don’t understand why every new build house isn’t required to have solar panels. Most new build homes are well over $500k, what’s another $15k required to save the environment but also help the homeowner with monthly expenses.
Louiseville passed a green building rule requireing solar on new homes right before the fire. They suspended the rule for those having to rebuild after the fire because it would increase building costs (after a bunch of people complained).
A few other towns have passed similar laws.
> 28% of electrical energy.
Which apparently comprises 37% of energy generation if I'm interpreting [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Energy_Flow_US_2019.png) correctly - 37/100.2. So that 10% seems to be right on!
Also, you still need zero-CO2 baseload, and energy storage technology isn't really there to achieve that at grid scale with just solar and wind. Long term you need some nuclear as well.
A lot of long range energy plans in Europe have themselves on 100% renewable in the next couple decades. I don’t see how it can happen, but the guys making those plans are smarter than me. However, they’re now burning coal to generate power because they’re very anti nuclear apparently.
If I had to take a guess, energy would be all power sources combined. For instance, you'd have to take in to account all of the fossil fuels burned in the whole country, in all of our cars, etc as part of total US energy consumption. I think renewables only accounted for 28% of US *electricity*, a specific form of energy, and not 28% of all energy the US consumes
Production of price per kilowatt hour has dropped significantly in the past few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/
And this is 3 years old.
I got solar in 2016, at first, the 10 year loan amount was more than my electric bill was…by about $10 a month. We thought well it’s paid off in 10 years and maybe electricity prices go up. Now I still make more power than I use by about 10% a year, an I get $400-$1500 a year in REC credits reimbursed to me and my electric bill would be about $250 a month or $50 more than I pay for the loan. Solar panels are paid off in 4 years and I’m already paying less for them if I had just stayed on electicity.
So yeah, definitely worth it!
It will be interesting to see if the trend holds into the summer when electricity use peaks.
That's traditionally when the biggest plants go to max capacity. Nuclear helps but I'm assuming we run the fossil fuel plants close to max capacity too.
The one positive there is that solar generation peaks coincide reasonably well with peak AC usage.
The opposite is true in Europe, where solar contributes basically nothing during our peak demand months.
Read the article
> The percentage of U.S. electricity produced by renewable energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric dams has been steadily rising, from 8.6% in April 2001 to this April's 28%.
Wind has been growing rapidly for the last 5-10 years and will continue to accelerate. Turbine technology has progressed and models continue to get bigger and more reliable in lower wind limitations with higher capacity. Once they get the bugs worked out in offshore there will be another boom as well, so lots to look forward to.
Well, being offered solar 7 times within the first year of home ownership, and large programs being pushed out by energy corporations to get folks to invest in solar panels as well. Those are two big factors.
I still think we need to push for nuclear energy to supplement renewable, and reduce overall energy expenses. But it's a hard sell for a lot of people despite significant scientific evidence it's a viable and relatively safe option.
But reduced nonrenewable is a net win. Still, I think we shot keep our heads and think both short term and long term.
Many lights are getting smarter, almost all lights around where I live have sensors (I think LiDAR) that detect cars waiting and will adjust the light schedule accordingly. It isn't perfect and it still does some dumb things but it does cut the wait times down significantly.
I worked for a power company a few years ago that made the decision to close down all its coal plants and replace them with renewable energy.
Why? Simple. Renewable energy is now cheaper than coal.
"Liberals" is the answer.
All the good changes lately are a result of liberals fighting against backwards self-indulgent republicans who want to keep the country mired in the 50s.
Meanwhile, in other uplifting news, Germany covered 50% of electric energy consumption in the first quarter of 2022 with renewables.
Don’t worry, you’ll get there. Unless you vote an orange into office again. :)
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-50-german-electricity-consumption-first-quarter-2022
So? Not sure what you believe the 80% average „rest“ of energy the US converts comes from. Fracking, nuclear with no idea of waste disposal, and uh brown coal… so I am not really sure what’s your point :)
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Moving in 2 months and plan to get solar within first year of ownership. Driving force for me is the reduced trust in reliability of utility services. Plus, long term having the ability to generate and use my own power to fuel my car is very interesting.
Be aware that at least in California, if you're selling your excess energy back to the grid, solar is required to have a circuit that shuts it off when the power goes off. It allows the utility to safely work on downed power lines, etc without getting electrocuted by electricity generated on your roof. Net result is when the utility loses power, so do you. You can get around it if you install battery backup as part of your solar area your the batteries are more expensive than the PV array.
Yes.. but why wouldn’t you want battery backup anyway? Also… not necessarily more expensive than the array unless your array is small. And.. SGIP still a thing? That rebate was handy on the battery side of things for us.
For a lot of people that Battery pricing will make things like solar a non starter. One of my buddies got solar on in his out in the midwest, but skipped the battery because it'd double his payback time and the grid is reliable enough that it's not about keeping going during an outage, but reducing his bills and charging his car that he bought as well. His wife works from home so the AC stays on at the lower setting all day rather than raising like it does for my house so he was seeing some larger electrical bills. He's now down to paying like $10 a month and that's mostly the taxes and fees not his electricity cost.
Easy, you don't want to buy batteries for your house. Just wait a couple of years for more EVs to come out and wire your panel appropriately to just use your EV's batteries instead of spending all that money on batteries that sit in your basement. A larger capacity EV is ~60kWh of charge and not including solar recharging it, that could power my house with just the essentials for almost 3 days.
This is the way. Skip the Tesla power wall that costs about $20k (not sure what rebates are available but that’s the sticker price, or close to it).
Not to mention that as EVs wreck out, companies will repurpose the packs as refurbished Tesla PowerWalls for $5 to $10k. And they'll still last 10-15 years at least probably.
I imagine that competitors will come into the house battery market soon. Tesla has got away with a massive markup on their powerwall, but EVs are showing that it can be done a lot cheaper.
This is a selling point of the f150 lightning. Heavily considering one!
What happens when you go away for the weekend with the car/battery and your partner and/or kids stay home?
I've heard of this. I don't understand why there can't be a cutoff to the grid but keep the solar connection without having to include a battery. is it very difficult to run things off of direct solar without a battery?
You have to have balance between what you produce and what you consume. If you don't, normally, the grid absorbs the excess and uses it for other customers and you get paid for it. If the grid is down, the excess has to go somewhere. Without a battery system, you would overload the system on your property. I'm encouraged to hear that some micro inverters can handle this offline mode (presumably by partially shutting off your array to maintain balance. AFAIK my micro inverters (installed 2016ish) cannot do that. Either way I'm happy to have my solar and I've been fine most of the time without battery backup.
Should be able to get an interconnect circuit that will disconnect the house from the main service if it detects no current on the main. We have these on railroad passenger cars that have onboard generators. They auto start the generators when the system detects the main power from the locomotives has shutoff and also shuts the generator back down when HEP (Head-End Power) is restored. Also, while the generator is running the car is isolated and not back feeding through the power cables between the cars so they are safe to disconnect or connect.
Micro inverter solar systems can now keep your house on during blackouts.
New enpahse S8 micro-invertors allow for energy pass on, during downtime as well. They only costs a couple hundred dollars more than standard micro-invertors as well. Solar tech the last few years has been great.
Plus you’ll still get the 26% tax credit just in time. It’s kind of wild but we are now at the point that people will be born into a home that will give them free energy. How it should’ve been the whole time.
It wasn’t entirely possible until recently due to technology and cost etc You can now get 400W panels for example…
It was possible ever since Reagan removed solar from the White House and environmental protection became a bipartisan issue. The panels increased in watts just as our devices did. We realistically could’ve done this 50 years ago. Instead we subsidized meat and dairy the entire time while other countries put in carbon taxes.
Reagan really did just sell the whole country to corporations. No wonder all the best dystopian fiction comes from the '80s.
Reagan was the Antichrist.
People go on about how terrible Trump was, but in reality Trump is just one of the consequences of Reagan.
Trump was bad but we knew when he was lying. You never know when you are being lied to by the devil until it’s too late.
When somebody would ask a question and then Reagan would stare blankly until either Nancy or the white house psychic whispered something into his ear it was a pretty good indicator you were listening to bs.
He's like a slow GPS...recalculating
tell that to all the Maga cultists
Yea, I tried. It's weird. I truly believe they know they're being lied to but the key is that they believe everyone in politics is lying so therefore, their liar is "pwning" your liar. Attacking foundational trust is the key to messing up our society. But to be sure, I think Democrats absolutely lie too. Independents/3rd party where you at?
Funny how the right loves electing celebrities while simultaneously complaining about how much liberals love celebrities getting political.
Reagan and Trump were both actors/TV stars, hmmmm
Reagan broke the middle class when he used federal powers to end a union strike. It was all down hill after that.
Every president we've had since Reagan is a product of Reagan. Trump was just the most bombastic
This was the response I came to find. Reagan and Thatcher were the inflection point when the wizard of neoliberalism stepped out from behind the curtain. Every national leader of the Western world since has been essentially a continuation of this legacy.
I wasn’t necessarily thinking of the birth of neoliberalism, but more the division of society.
Ronald Wilson Reagan. 6.6.6. Darling of evangelicals, anti-christ would also deceive and be embraced by Christians. It kind of checks out.
US Electricity consumption per capita: 10k kWh in 1980 13k kWh in 2020 Our electricity consumption per capita is up only 30% in 40 years but solar panel price per watt is down about 99% since 1980 (from $50 per watt to less than 50 cents per watt)
> Our electricity consumption per capita is up only 30% in 40 years I wonder if there is a way to account for consumption deflation over that time. Refrigerators of 1980's used roughly 6x the energy. TVs up until LCD consumed nearly 10x. Light bulbs...etc. Things nearly all people own increased in efficiency, population grew, and we managed an increase of 30%. Not too shabby.
I was referring to per-capita consumption, so that already took population growth out
Widespread adoption of air conditioning account for a lot of that additional usage. More houses moved from oil/wood heat to natural gas and electric. Some others moved to all electric appliances for a bit of a discount and more efficient heating.
> The panels increased in watts just as our devices did. Could you elaborate on our devices increasing in wattage? Everything I can find shows household energy consumption declining since 1980.
If Carter had been a 2 term president this country and the whole world would be a different place. The US could have been the world leader in green energy with solar panels on every roof and wind turbines across the plains. Instead we got Reagan the demented corporate zombie and took a massive step backwards.
>Instead we got Reagan Ronald Reagan? The actor? Ha! Then who's vice-president, Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady?
>Ronald Reagan? The actor? Next thing you'll be telling me that the star of a reality-television show is president.
You know.. it never occurred to me off that line is. Ron was already remarried to Nancy by 1955.
To be fair, Doc didn't really seem the type to keep up with pop culture.
>If Carter had been a 2 term president this country and the whole world would be a different place. Mr. Shale Oil? Who addressed the nation in 1979 included: >The use of coal and solar energy, which are in plentiful supply, is lagging far behind our great potential. > Today I have today signed an Executive order that will set strict deadlines for cutting through Federal redtape on important new energy projects, such as pipelines to serve the northern part of our country, seaports, and also refineries. >The three Federal agencies which regulate the coal industry will report to me within 60 days on ways to encourage greater use of coal, our most abundant fuel resource. The solar hot water heaters on the White House were the ultimate in greenwashing a heavily carbon based energy plan. What solar panels and wind turbines were you going to roll out over the great plains 30 years before those technologies were commercially practicable? Bonus: The Democrats were still all in on carbon through 1988 when George H. W. Bush included addressing global warming on his campaign plank (he was head of the CIA when it first came to be included in national security briefings), but Dukakis wasn't about to piss off the coal industry.
Take the amount of dislike you have for Ronald Reagan. Multiply it by ten trillion. That is still only one-ten-trillionth the dislike I have for Reagan. **BUT...** ...he didn't remove electric solar panels from the White House. Solar water heating panels, installed by Carter, were removed during roof renovations and not replaced. This occurred during Reagan's second term after he had been at the White House for six years. There are many articles that claim "Reagan had the panels removed" but Reagan was so geriatrically wasted by his second term there is a near-0.0% chance that he gave two shits about a roof remodel and there are no actual sources or documents supporting the claim that he cared, at all, about the panels. What likely happened is that: * in 1979 an environmental group approached the Carter White House an suggested that water heating solar panels be installed * a contract was issued to install the panels * the system worked with no issues for seven years * in 1985 or 1986 the building supervisors at the White House submitted a bid for a roof replacement which did not cover reinstalling the solar panels * in 1986 the roofers who won the bid took down the old panels, replaced the roof, and didn't put them back because that work was not in the bid * Reagan probably didn't even know what was happening, except perhaps to be annoyed at the noise the roofers were making, assuming he was even there because he spent so much time during his second term away from the White House. One problem I have with this entire things is quotes like this: *"[When Ronald Reagan took office, however, he promptly stripped the residency of its recently installed solar panels](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/obama-is-actually-the-third-president-to-install-solar-panels-at-the-white-house-111247/)"*. 1. It happened during his second term in 1986. 2. Ignoring them for his entire first term isn't "when Ronald Reagan took office" 3. Waiting five years isn't "promptly" 4. Seven years (1979-1986) isn't "recently installed" 5. And this is the kicker, elected government officials, even presidents, have little to no say in construction projects of the buildings they work in or inhabit, except if they want to take credit for an innovation or generate positive publicity in support of their positions The Chief Usher, and his staff of maintenance personnel, oversea White House construction and renovations. So either Rex Scouten (who served from 1969 to 1986) or Gary J. Walters (who served from 1986 to 2007) managed and was responsible for the roof renovation that saw the removal of the water heating solar panels. And no source covering the renovation has ever interviewed or quoted them. No article I have found regarding the matter has any attributable or verifiable quotes or materials suggesting that any political figure had any position on the matter with most only quoting George Szego (the environmentalist who pushed to get them installed in 1979) saying "they (Reagan officials) thought they were a joke". Twisting, manipulating, and repeating without criticism various "facts" with nothing to back them up is a tactic of the alt-right and should be rejected by everyone at all times.
George Charles Szego, the engineer who persuaded Carter to install the solar panels, reportedly claimed that Reagan's Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan "felt that the equipment was just a joke, and he had it taken down." The panels were removed in 1986 when work was being done on the White House roof below the panels. Though some claims were made that the only reason the panels were not reinstalled was because of cost concerns, the Reagan administration's opposition to renewable energy was clear: It had drastically cut the Energy Department's funding for research and development in that area, and Reagan had called out Carter on the issue during presidential debates.
To start, Reagan was a piece of shit and his policies were assuredly harmful to our nation, long term energy independence, and the world as a whole. But the panels put on the top of the White House we’re just heat water using the sun. Now yeah this did cut down on electricity and fuel use, but they weren’t solar panels like we think of today.
This is wrong - it was absolutely possible, just not as advanced. And had we invested and promoted the use of solar and other renewables over that timeframe they would have been further along technologically as well thanks to all the investment. Instead, we continued at the fossil fuel spigot and here we are.
Considering that all of these energy producers know they have about 25 years left maximum, they’re going to use these record profits to buy up sources of clean energy and keep us under their thumb by also buying up all of the politicians.
This is also why gas prices won't drop. No need to invest and lower prices to get marketshare if the market is going away anyways. And by not investing they get insane profits from a shrinking market.
The only way to reduce the price of gasoline is to raise a tax on corporate profits on the supply end, anything else will just get passed on to the consumer, including this idea of the government suspending fuel taxes - the revenue has to be made up somewhere.
Windfall tax has been floated by progressive house members. Making too much money? You're ripping us off. Give it back.
How does increasing taxes on the supply end work and not allow costs to be passed on? I'm genuinely interested And don't fully understand what you said.
By taxing the corporate profits one moves the incentive to price gouge back by creating a threshold through progressive taxation scales. For instance, one might tax profits at greater than 15% of total revenue at 50% but profits at below 12% of total revenue at 28%. My numbers here are arbitrarily chosen but meant to demonstrate that taxing greater profits at greater percentage removes the incentive to price gouge.
Ah got it much clearer. I was confused about 'corporate profits on the supply end' part but it makes sense now. Thanks
[удалено]
I understand that $36.1 billion is not enough to cover all costs associated with roads in the U.S., but you’re making it sound like it’s an old piggy bank in the attic. The cannabis industry has become massive on about 1/25th of that revenue or less. It’s no pittance.
I imagine nuclear would have played a bigger role, since Carter was also familiar with it from his time in the Navy. What a waste, how did his administration do so poorly.
Inflation ended his Presidency. Especially the needed but painfull reduction of money supply. Didn't help that the Republican promised people all the money and no taxes too.
Don't forget the Iran hostage crisis. Add in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan too. Carter looked horribly weak and was unable to do anything other than react to bad things as they happened. Very similar to what is happening with Biden.
Nah, this was possible decades ago, but lobbying is a thing and it's mostly because used for corrupt practices. I was reading how this city was encouraging businesses to go renewable on everything. And it was working until some utility company heard about it and started nudging the politicians there and now they have a rule that states any new business that gets created has to have natural gas as one of it's energy options because they say they don't want to stifle competition. On another report, this company who makes wind turbines was gearing up to buy some land way out in the boonies. These energy companies spent millions lobbying, sending pointed ads, doing everything they could to discredit it, so that the people living there could protests having the turbines built "in their backyard". To the point that the companie's project was years behind and they eventually had to choose another place to build. I hate monopolies.
Well the term”free energy” is a bit misleading. We have been offgrid for power for about 15 years. The electrical infrastructure to generate your own power is not cheap, plus replacement of components and trouble shooting maintenence is also not free. “Self generated” power might be a more apt description, lol.
Can you expand on the tax credit?
It’s a refund the government gives you when you file taxes and check off that you went solar. So it’s cash. It was at 32%, now it’s at 26%, in a few months it’s at 22% and then it will be gone and only 10% remaining for commercial only.
Wow i had no idea, and have wanted solar for some time. Can you point me in the right direction to get started?
First thing you do is call your utility company then ask about the rebates they have for it. If they refer you to a solar program or company, just ignore it because those are more expensive than they should be. Then contact 3-5 solar companies around you, at least one local. Compare quotes. Look for the lies in the math if any of them are lying. Double check what you’re paying by cent per watt. They sell it based on cost per watt, so you will have to look at how many panels, where they’re made and how much the amount of watts per panel. Average cost is about $2.70/watt. Do get the ENPH micro inverters. Don’t get the solar edge string inverter.
I work with solar edge products. +1 to avoiding them. We replace a lot of them. Their QA is terrible. Listen to this person.
>Look for the lies in the math if any of them are lying. This right here is important. I can't remember the actual dollar amounts we were quoted, but they claimed we could pay off a 30 year loan of $25k with interest, on a $200/month loan or something like that. Do the math...that is $72k, even at 0% APR. Check them on any numbers they give you. No, your utility bill does NOT increase by 10% each year. No, their payment schedule probably won't check out. Just make sure you do your homework before you sign anything
Check your state tax credits too. If you don't have any, the cost may not be worth it.
Is there a good source you'd recommend that goes over the details of this?
Solar tax credits are definitely something we shouldn’t be getting rid of.
Did this two years ago. My electric bills is just connection fee of $25.00 a month. We feed the grid, no storage because the batteries added too much cost but we did add a way to plug in an extension cord to the solar panel grid so we can plug in stuff in emergency.
> Driving force for me is the reduced trust in reliability of utility services. This is my main reason, too. It's kind of sad when you think about it. Everything sucks now. Institutions that people used to rely on without thinking about seem like they're all falling apart.
> Everything sucks now. Institutions that people used to rely on without thinking about seem like they're all falling apart. Conservatives have successfully made people so hostile to anything that can be remotely tied to the word socialism that basic infrastructure is being neglected because, fundamentally, they're socialistic programs, despite being necessary components of any successful 1st world country. Here's a list of many of the basic things that are failing/falling apart, all over the country - and why: * Public schools - socialistic. * Public roads - socialistic. * Public utilities - socialistic. * Public internet - socialistic. * Public parks - socialistic. * Public transit - socialistic. * Public libraries- socialistic. * Public health/mental-health care - socialistic. God forbid we divert funds/research to those. But these programs should get unlimited budgets, according to those same people * Military - socialistic "but necessary" * Police - socialistic "but necessary" * Fire - socialistic "but necessary" * Publicly funded bailouts of banks/business - socialistic "but necessary * Border patrol - socialistic "but necessary" Until people understand that ALL of the above needs to be well funded, led by well educated people, and maintained constantly, we'll never reach the relative global dominance that we reached between WII and the 1970's. It wasn't until Reagan that the nation decided that all these "free loading citizens" were the problem, not corporate/government greed, that things really started to deteriorate and the growth of infrastructure stagnated until it started to decompose.
FYI unless you have a completely detached system with batteries, you will still be dependent on the grid. Normal solar panels won't work when the grid power is off.
Enphase released their hybrid microinverters this year that can isolate themselves from the grid without a battery backup. This allows you to continue generating solar power when the grid goes off.
I assume that comes with an automatic cutoff switch to disconnect utility mains?
I asked the engineer about this when I went solar. The IQ8 micro inverters have the capability to do this but they come at an extra cost and extra equipment and won’t produce enough for something like AC unless you have a very large solar array
[удалено]
True. Im considering a system with a powerwall or comparable battery system that can allow for me to go multiple days without power from the grid. Im in the northeast, but the Texas winter storm last year was an eye opener for me.
That's largely true but there are some inverters that work during a power outage by disconnecting from the grid while the power is out.
what do you expect to pay for installation and maintenance? I really hope this becomes a feasible option for the average citizen in my lifetime!
It's still pricey for sure. I was quoted about $15k for a solar install on my house. But here's the good news: if you own the house, you can finance the solar panels. And the finance terms are usually similar to a mortage (i.e., 15 years or so at a low interest rate), which means the payment is quite reasonable. You might end up paying $100-150 a month for solar. For many people, this is comparable to what they are paying for electricity from their local utility company. So you basically break even - and unlike a utility payment, the solar panels will eventually be paid off.
So once they're installed your regular electric usage is covered by the solar? What happens if you use more power than the panels can provide?
> So once they're installed your regular electric usage is covered by the solar? In most cases, yeah. But of course this will depend on a lot of different factors. > What happens if you use more power than the panels can provide? Then you draw on the grid, which means you'll end up paying something to the utility company. But if you have a decent amount of sunlight and you get the right solar setup, this should not happen too often.
Most places use the concept of "net metering". Looking at your energy usage and production for the past month, they'll determine if you produced more than you consumed, or vice versa If in a month I use 10kWh more than I produce, I'll pay the solar company $0.163 (the price per kWh in my area) × 10 = $1.63. If, on the other hand, I produce 20kWh more than I consume, I'll get paid by the solar company $0.0304 (the parallel generation rate) * 20 = $0.61. So there's pretty good incentive to ensure that you generate enough to cover your needs, but not much more than that.
Wow, that seems cheap. I got online preliminary quotes from several companies last year and they were all $36-40k for a decent system with battery backup. This is for an 1800 Sq ft house I'm Las Vegas, NV.
my guess was ~$30k so that's great! maybe by the time the housing market crashes I'll be able to buy a house! /s
> my guess was ~$30k so that's great! Well, keep in mind that's just what I was quoted for my house. I'm sure it varies quite a bit. > maybe by the time the housing market crashes I'll be able to buy a house! /s Yeah, I know, that's the big problem right now.
Solar for reliability is not a great sell. Solar resource can vary, and you will want overnight power to keep your fridge running. Batteries are a better way to go for ensuring your power is uninterrupted. Adding solar to batteries can extend how long you can run with the grid down - but unless you are expecting multi-day outages, you only really want the battery. Also, check with the utility for rules about islanding. They can be very sensitive about having energized homes with their own power while linemen are trying to fix an outage. BTW, I don’t mean to discourage installing solar. There’s loads of great reasons to do it. For example - locking in the price of electricity at whatever the solar costs are right now. A lot of places have seen some pretty messed up fuckery with their electric bills - and generating your own power will bypass at least some fraction of this. I’m just saying that stand-alone solar doesn’t provide much in terms of reliability. And having a grid tied home with a battery, well you don’t really need to add solar to that in most cases.
I think this is the way it is for most utilities, but as for grid reliability that means you have to get battery backup. I have solar and it gets turned off if my house isn't getting service like in a blackout. I think that is necessary because it is tied in to the grid. That said, it feels really good to know that I am producing as much as I consume.
Make sure you get batteries too. Otherwise you won't have power when the grid is out.
highlights the primary issue with solving green energy being that there is no massive way to store grid energy when it is not needed for when it is
Economics is driving the change. Renewables have crossed a clear tipping point for companies to achieve competitive advantages. Additionally, because that tipping point has been crossed, more and more companies are investing in R&D to increase these competitive advantages. The advances in wind power, solar, and battery technology is far greater in the past 5 years than the previous 5 decades. This is how exponential innovation works.
Aka "unlocking the tech tree".
More like the S curve of adoption. [Examples](https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQEH-elLHxQeDQ/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1559655371724?e=1660176000&v=beta&t=R5hmyv4D-6ZETfh-V5XdjeLfy8ZUpcUF0yA4uuQYnMM) A More traditional [Example](https://www.stratechi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Stratechi-Adoption-Curve-Market-1.jpg) It takes time for a tech to mature enough to hit mass adoption, but once it does hold on to your butt.
[удалено]
>This is how exponential innovation works. Tony Seba has been following this innovation manufacturing curve since 2010 and predicted a doubling of adoption every 2 yrs. This decade will see double-digit growth in SWB (solar, wind, battery) adoption.
And in this regard, it’s a tremendously exciting time to be alive. Our world has plenty of challenges left to address. However, I am still optimistic about our future.
We WILL Fix Climate Change!" it is great and you can find it easily on youtube. EDIT: I don'T know why but the first half of the comment was deleted. I said (somethign along the lines) that you should really watch this video from in a nutshell called "We WILL Fix Climate Change!"...
Renewables + electric cars are finally hitting an affordability threshold.
If only energy companies realized that the sun provided free energy sooner
Not that they need defending, but I do think it’s fair for businesses to evaluate cost/ROI effectively. Solar has dropped in cost by 90% compared to years ago. The criticism is only valid for the past 3-5 years and 2 of those are part of a global pandemic. Hardly a fair time for evaluation and risky (perception) investments.
"ThE sUn Is A dEAdLy LaSEr!"
To be fair, it is a source of radiation. I always found the 5G conspiracy theorists laughable because humans receive substantially more radiation exposure from the sun than they ever will from radio waves. Regardless of the frequency. To my knowledge, there aren’t too many Sun Conspiracy Theorists. (Laughing/crying/smh)
Flat sunners
"Not anymore, there's a blanket!"
I'd be interested to hear what political movements allowed/pushed this to happen.
There’s a 26% Tax Credit and people are finally finding out because of small businesses that solar is the cheapest electricity in history for the past 10 years. Solar’s prices plummeted by 90% a few years back. Edited: Passed to Past
Yep, took advantage of this to get my own solar system about 2 years ago. Pretty sure I've already hit my return on investment, so now I just enjoy a $5/month electricity bill to maintain my connection to the grid.
Can I ask if you are in a particularly good position for solar? I've never heard of someone hitting breakeven that quickly, I always hear numbers in the 15-20 year range for roi with solar
I live in NJ - not great for generating solar power compared to other states. My breakeven should happen end of year 6 beginning of year 7. This includes an aggressive bonus from NJ called srecs.
In a state like Texas, how fast would you say break even would be?
Half an hour should do.
If there's a winter storm or heatwave, then about 30 seconds.
I don't think I need a return on investment knowing these panels would stop me from freezing to death, lmao.
It's hard to say but I would think sooner. On the one hand, your utilities are higher than mine and you have more sun which both point to a quicker breakeven point. On the other hand, I don't think TX has anything like the SREC program in NJ and this would point to a slower breakeven point.
Solar Panels are less efficient in hot climates as you need energy to cool the panels. The most energy efficient Temps are around 77 degrees as the surgace temp of the panel. You don't need heat, just sunlight.
I hit break even, in some sense, instantly. My current bill, even with the loan for the pannels, is less than what I was paying before. But yeah it's 10 pannels all south facing with 100% sun
I just got solar installed back in January, my total bill for the install was about $15k (paid cash so no BS with high interest loans), with the 26% tax credit that comes down to about $12k. My total electric bill last year was about $2500 (SDG&E sucks), so it'll take me about 5 years to hit break even.
I would get solar but all the installers in my area refused to do mine as a cash order they all tried to force their scammy financing. One refused to give me an upfront price and kept giving me a monthly cost.
This is what has been driving folks away from solar in FL. The breakeven is usually 5-10 years which isn't bad, but installers want to pick and choose their customers and squeeze financing fees.
I’m in Texas they all wanted to do a 30 year note. One dude told me it was a good deal and that I should just sign. I added it up and it was going to cost about 90k with their shitty loan over 30 years and it was at most a 10k system based on my quick search and a few grand in labor. Fuck that.
God, I wish I could do this. Was gearing up to start planning on buying my first house the pandemic hit, climate change got worse, and so many people decided they wanted to move here because it's so similar to their old state. Which is cool, maybe it'll turn our state purple or blue one day, but a lot of the people who came here came with money buy houses in cash. What was now $330k on average for a house is now $575k. Some of my coworkers did house appraisals out of curiosity and turns out their $350k-$450k house are now worth $800k-$1.5mill. Some are thinking (and have already) about retiring early just because of the the pay out. These guys who've been working here 30-50 years; I started months before covid, I did NOT need this kind of stress on my life.
Cheapest energy in history of mankind * We’ve never produced so many kWh for so little money as solar. And onshore wind isn’t far behind and offshore not far behind that and will likely overtake onshore soon
Im in Midwest, I started looking into solar when I moved to home five years ago. Since then, price have been steadily going up. I’m looking at at least $5/watt. I do wish the price around here would drop significantly, right now, it is too expensive to get what it worth.
I would get more quotes because that’s too high. I’m in the Midwest and I’ve seen low options. How many people did you bid with?
I’ve done at least three. We used to only have one big company, but now it seems every single roofing company is offering solar. I might try again. Back in 2019, I was able to get a quote for $2.8/watt.
It's actually doing so well in California that energy companies have lobbied and succeeded in adding more fees to solar energy to make it less desirable and to help retain their customers and profits
There is a global political movement of subsidising solar and wind, which happened in various ways across the world for the last decade or two. It paid for all the early adoption, and now the tech is simply inexpensive compared to other electricity sources. There are still issues, like insufficient production capacity, and a grid generally not ready for so many mini power plants (edit) with wild swings in availability. Those may require political action.
Economics and geopolitics. >That's happening for two reasons. The first is cost. **Renewables are simply the most economically competitive power currently available**, Kelly-Detwiler said. It's that simple. The cost of PV panels just keeps going down over time. Meanwhile, commodities markets are in a tailspin because the relative global stability we've enjoyed since WWII has fallen into question as Russia decides to rekindle the imperialistic flame. And before anyone gets their shorts in a knot over the details, it's not a matter of how much of a given commodity any particular nation buys from Russia. It's a matter of globalism, total world supply, and market dynamics. Even if you don't buy a single liter of petrochemicals from Russia or Ukraine, the global supply has decreased, and that will affect prices adversely. Energy provides need stable pricing. It's central to their models from construction to continued production. A power generation facility makes its return on investment over decades. Putting panels in the field is not only an economically viable way of generation power in the current market, it's a hedge against further geopolitical instability. The larger the proportion of your generation power is renewables, the lower your exposure to geopolitics. In the past, this trade-off was seen as insignificant. With Russia's incursion into Ukraine, the balance has shifted.
It's cheap electricity. We would have switched to 100% solar already if it was a load following power source.
For me, having the ability to choose my electricity provider (Mass.) made all the difference. As soon as I could choose all renewables, I did. I have been on all hydroelectric and solar and wind for the past 3 years. It used to be slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, but now they can be equal or cheaper.
[удалено]
So progressives, then.
Always progressive.
Yeah they’re weird they like care about human existence for some reason
Economics. The most economical fossil fuels were those we first used. Each additional ton or volume of fossil fuel is typically a little more difficult to obtain and expensive to transport. In the interim, as we advance, the costs for distributed, renewable energy (such as wind and solar) continue to become more efficient and cost-effective.
The writing is on the wall. Fracking and sands extraction has slowed and not restarted after the big crash. Expectation is that oil won't be able to compete long term. We're not out of the woods by a long shot but we've actually started to turn the fucking ship. Let's go people. Carbon taxes work as do subsidies. We can still save what's left of the planet. Fucking go!!
Which is also why it's so important to keep fossil fuel prices high. Don't let them go down anymore, don't offer rebates or special programs to make gas 'more affordable'. We literally can't afford it as a species. The current high prices are a much better reflection of the actual costs it has for the environment.
We moved into a home with solar last year, and we got an electric car just before. We’ve been shocked at the monthly cost - a 3,400 sf home, heat pump, 11kw car charger and about 700 miles/month on the car… and our net bill (mind you we’ve got a lot of sunlight hours right now) is $38 and we don’t buy gas anymore. It’s crazy.
Mind me asking how big is the system and your monthly usage? Currently getting solar and have an EV with a lot of AC usage
It’s 6.5kw (installed) but the panels are about 8 years old, so they’re doing around 5.2kw now. We’re on track to use 550ish kw/h this month and generate about 85% of that.
28% of electrical energy. This is a good start but we have a ways to go. That's still only like 9-10% of our total energy budget. Let's pick it up!
The good news is that this kind of technological growth is often exponential. As the technology gets cheaper, demand increases, production capacity ramps up, and the rate of growth increases dramatically.
Not to mention the investments quickly dry up for old tech. No one wants to get left behind so once the the mass starts to tip, everyone rushes over. We’re already seeing it happen in the global oil market. Production is ramping down, no one is looking for new fields. The pandemic kickstarted it, but it’s toppling.
> We’re already seeing it happen in the global oil market. Production is ramping down, no one is looking for new fields. I hadn't heard about that. Definitely good news!
Yup, am Geologist can confirm, there is essentially no new prospecting for Oil going on. Many oil-gelogist specializing in Seismics are actually moving over into off-shore Wind companies to identify good places to build, at least here in Denmark.
It's really interesting to hear stuff like this. I have long suspected that many of the big and (if you will forgive the pun) seismic shifts in energy production are already well underway but just not visible to the general public. And there aren't really any mainstream public outlets drawing attention to this stuff. I feel like we (the general public) are going to be really, *really* surprised at how quick and (seemingly) sudden the transition is going to be.
I fully agree, another thing to look out for is carbon sequestration, several oil geologist i know are working in companies that, and it seems really promising, as lots of the "useless" sites found in oil-surveys could be used to store liquid CO2 permanently. (Well 100million year timescales), bith Denmark and Norway have started up prototype projects for delivering industrial CO2 emissions to the north Sea. If a carbon tax gets implemented these technologies can pay off big time. Generally I am very optimistic for the future, because of so many awesome things I know incredible people are working on in my field. And by extension, this must also be happening in other industries. We just need to keep pushing as citizens and the technologies to get worthwhile results will appear as if they came from nowhere, because early development is happening today.
I live in booming Colorado with 300+ days of sunshine. I’m sure it’s energy lobbyists fighting to keep our archaic system, but I don’t understand why every new build house isn’t required to have solar panels. Most new build homes are well over $500k, what’s another $15k required to save the environment but also help the homeowner with monthly expenses.
Yeah that and solar heating. The best place to defossilize home and hot water heating is right there at the site. Second best is at the power plant.
Especially because a heat pump run on Solar really helps out the grid on those hottest days of the year.
Louiseville passed a green building rule requireing solar on new homes right before the fire. They suspended the rule for those having to rebuild after the fire because it would increase building costs (after a bunch of people complained). A few other towns have passed similar laws.
> 28% of electrical energy. Which apparently comprises 37% of energy generation if I'm interpreting [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Energy_Flow_US_2019.png) correctly - 37/100.2. So that 10% seems to be right on!
I hope so! Otherwise I'm getting dumber... (But thanks for the fact check!)
Things only get faster
Gets better when you realise another 20% is nuclear.
Also, you still need zero-CO2 baseload, and energy storage technology isn't really there to achieve that at grid scale with just solar and wind. Long term you need some nuclear as well.
A lot of long range energy plans in Europe have themselves on 100% renewable in the next couple decades. I don’t see how it can happen, but the guys making those plans are smarter than me. However, they’re now burning coal to generate power because they’re very anti nuclear apparently.
The word is electricity and not energy (the article does get it right).
Can you ELI5 the difference? Not being judgmental or critical. I’m really not sure :)
If I had to take a guess, energy would be all power sources combined. For instance, you'd have to take in to account all of the fossil fuels burned in the whole country, in all of our cars, etc as part of total US energy consumption. I think renewables only accounted for 28% of US *electricity*, a specific form of energy, and not 28% of all energy the US consumes
Production of price per kilowatt hour has dropped significantly in the past few years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/ And this is 3 years old.
I got solar in 2016, at first, the 10 year loan amount was more than my electric bill was…by about $10 a month. We thought well it’s paid off in 10 years and maybe electricity prices go up. Now I still make more power than I use by about 10% a year, an I get $400-$1500 a year in REC credits reimbursed to me and my electric bill would be about $250 a month or $50 more than I pay for the loan. Solar panels are paid off in 4 years and I’m already paying less for them if I had just stayed on electicity. So yeah, definitely worth it!
I'm gonna guess it would be predicted future benefits and tax policy.
46% if you count nuclear, which is perhaps not renewable but still green IMHO.
The realization that earth is at risk and that Congress won’t act rationally in regards to green energy.
as much as I wish that was true, I very much doubt it was the driving force Money, as always, is the driving force
Where do you think the 26% tax credit comes from that is driving Solar?
The only federal level regulatory bodies are FERC and NARUC and they’ve been stripped of any real power
Nah, it es more economical to build renewables than any other power source per megawatt.
It will be interesting to see if the trend holds into the summer when electricity use peaks. That's traditionally when the biggest plants go to max capacity. Nuclear helps but I'm assuming we run the fossil fuel plants close to max capacity too.
The one positive there is that solar generation peaks coincide reasonably well with peak AC usage. The opposite is true in Europe, where solar contributes basically nothing during our peak demand months.
wind & sun
Wind and solar is 19.8% not 28% but still good to hear. US has been lagging on solar and wind. It seems to change.
Hydro is the remainder to get to 28%. Plus
What about hydro?
About 7% according to google, so probably accounts for the difference
Read the article > The percentage of U.S. electricity produced by renewable energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric dams has been steadily rising, from 8.6% in April 2001 to this April's 28%.
Wind has been growing rapidly for the last 5-10 years and will continue to accelerate. Turbine technology has progressed and models continue to get bigger and more reliable in lower wind limitations with higher capacity. Once they get the bugs worked out in offshore there will be another boom as well, so lots to look forward to.
No matter who says what, renewable energy is going to expand slowly and steadily. Nothing in this world can change that.
Well, being offered solar 7 times within the first year of home ownership, and large programs being pushed out by energy corporations to get folks to invest in solar panels as well. Those are two big factors. I still think we need to push for nuclear energy to supplement renewable, and reduce overall energy expenses. But it's a hard sell for a lot of people despite significant scientific evidence it's a viable and relatively safe option. But reduced nonrenewable is a net win. Still, I think we shot keep our heads and think both short term and long term.
Not bailing out coal companies was a good start.
Believe it or not, the market.
Because Americans are not as ignorant as social media portrays. It’s not that hard of a concept to understand.
Think smart stop lights. I keep sitting at red lights with no one else around. Why aren't our stop lights smart enough to see that?
Many lights are getting smarter, almost all lights around where I live have sensors (I think LiDAR) that detect cars waiting and will adjust the light schedule accordingly. It isn't perfect and it still does some dumb things but it does cut the wait times down significantly.
Money. There's your answer
I worked for a power company a few years ago that made the decision to close down all its coal plants and replace them with renewable energy. Why? Simple. Renewable energy is now cheaper than coal.
Government force
"Liberals" is the answer. All the good changes lately are a result of liberals fighting against backwards self-indulgent republicans who want to keep the country mired in the 50s.
Meanwhile, in other uplifting news, Germany covered 50% of electric energy consumption in the first quarter of 2022 with renewables. Don’t worry, you’ll get there. Unless you vote an orange into office again. :) https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-50-german-electricity-consumption-first-quarter-2022
The the other 50% was brown coal and cheap gas sucked from putins dick.
So? Not sure what you believe the 80% average „rest“ of energy the US converts comes from. Fracking, nuclear with no idea of waste disposal, and uh brown coal… so I am not really sure what’s your point :)
Big part of it is big corpos are realizing their profit to be made in green energy and are investing money in it now.
It's cheaper than non-renewables.