Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)

[wa_desert_rat]

" One of the hardest places to move electricity if from California to Washington state with just Oregon in the way."

Since you didn't post a link to this quote I'm left to wonder two things:

 

1. Why are we moving power from CA to WA? Typically WA has far more excess power than CA has.

 

2. Why is it difficult? We routinely move excess power from WA to CA through Oregon. There is even a term for it. It's called "wheeling". It adds to the cost of the power, of course, but power generated in WA can cost as little as 1-cent per kw/h.

 

Since WA produces 29% of the Nation's demand for electricity, it has to be moved somehow. Why is it an issue through OR?

 

WDR

[wa_desert_rat]

I think I saw about five new posts since I started typing this one...

Yes... this is really a great discussion!

 

But as far as a new grid for districuted (roof-top) solar I disagree. In fact, of all the solutions for more power generation the smallest issue is the grid. New nuke plants need more grid. New coal plants need more grid.

 

But solar on your roof doesn't need a new grid. Because, for one thing, if you can DRAW 5kw of power from the grid with no alterations then you can FEED 5wk into that grid as well. And for another, if you have roof-top solar the chances are that your home is using at least a part of that; so that's power that won't ever see the grid.

 

It's only when you have very large scale solar that you'd need a new grid and, let's face it, most of us don't have enough appropriate roof area for more than maybe 10kw of effective solar power. Remember that a lot of us have rooftops that are (like mine) slanted east/west (the most effective is south, of course). And a fair number of us have shade trees.

 

It also distributes the installation costs and limits the profits banks make on bond sales (which is how utility companies raise the funds to build new nuclear plants).

 

WDR

[wa_desert_rat]

Here's a good article showing country of manufacture and market share for each major solar company. http://blog.energysage.com/where-solar-panels-are-manufactuered/

 

It would seem that China is responsible for over 40% of the worlds solar panel production, not an insignificant amount. As Stanley said, even companies like Canadian Solar manufacture panel components in China. They should advertise manufactured in China, assembled in Canada.

 

That link is pretty interesting. I can only speak to REC because two of their main silene (the raw material used in the production of silicon for solar panels) plants are in the PNW; one in Missoula, MT and the other right here in Moses Lake, WA. The silene is then sold to production facilities around North America and exported internationally.

 

I'm not convinced that country-of-origin is important but I have to also say that I wish I could afford the Solyndra panels. They are, by all accounts, a remarkable technology.

 

It's interesting that I live in a hot-bed of solar activity considering that my home electric power rate is 0.04 cents per kw/h!!! The local school district just put up a huge panel and they get power even cheaper than I do.

 

A lot of this is political but the smallest players in the politics are you and me. And the obvious advantage we have is only the simple fact that we are actually using solar power on our RVs. Some of us more than others and some of us for longer than others. But just being able to see the advantages solar has gives us an edge.

 

I'll never have a nuclear plant in my motor home, for instance. Or fusion. Or even a fuel cell. But I *can* have a solar generation system that fulfills 90% of my needs. It's really hard to spin facts and numbers to people that are actually using the technology on a day-to-day basis.

 

WDR

[docj]

 

On #2 the rods are dangerous to store, difficult too as is much of our old nuke waste (see Hanford Project for a true horror story)

 

 

 

Stan:

 

I presume you understand that the Hanford wastes have nothing to do with civilian reactor usage and are entirely the result of the nuclear weapons program. Much of the waste dates to the Manhattan project and the early years of the Cold War. The Hanford site housed the original production reactors that created the plutonium used in the weapon dropped on Nagasaki. Those reactors continued to be used to produce plutonium for the weapons program.

 

Reprocessing of fuel rods to chemically separate plutonium from the rest of the "stuff" starts by dissolving the fuel rods in hot nitric acid. Once the plutonium is separated from this "soup" the rest is waste, or at least it was to the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor of DOE). Therefore, the Hanford facility essentially "dewatered" the soup which created a salt slurry which was placed into tanks, many of which were only single wall mild steel. This salt slurry/cake contains both high level nuclear wastes (Cesium and other noxious stuff) and more mundane somewhat less hazardous stuff. A number of the Hanford tanks are known to have ruptured and leaked into the ground.

 

The DOE has already spent many, many millions trying to get its arms around how to safely retrieve and repackage the Hanford wastes. Modern reprocessing facilities such as the one in France separate the truly nasty wastes from the others and encapsulate them in special glass billets which are then stored in a concrete vault facility. Someday the Hanford wastes will end up in such a facility but the volume is much larger than anything being dealt with in France, or elsewhere because the high level wastes weren't separated from the rest of the "stuff."

 

For those that care, not all radioactive material is equally dangerous. The actual byproducts of nuclear fission (cesium, strontium, et al) that have half lifes of 25-50 years are the worst. Uranium with a half life of billions of years (for Uranium 238) is not nearly so dangerous.

 

Joel

[skp51443]

Pumped water energy storage is interesting but in application pretty limited due to the large amount of water involved and the few locations available with enough open space for a water holding location at a sufficient height.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam#Pump-generating_plant

 

 

Moving power around WA to CA is interesting, this is a direct current intertie that tries to avoid the large losses and other problems you get from moving AC long distances.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie

 

 

Up in post 27... WDR, I wasn't talking about a new grid, rather that we needed to keep the grid we have to provide backup to local solar and wind. We might be able to make some changes in it based on newer technology and changing load / generation patterns in particular the DC interties that really reduce the vulnerability of the system to intentional damage.

 

My roof in Phoenix the Mecca for solar power is pretty unsuitable for solar, the ridgeline points north/south so unless I go with a really ugly raised panel design that is very vulnerable to wind (a neighbor has had damage twice in the last 5 years) I can't really install a system that makes sense even with the government subsidies. I've talked to several door to door sales types from some of the bigger players and none of them could provide me with a system that made sense to own or more important for me that would be easy to sell to a potential buyer when we move on from here.

 

 

Up in post 29... DOCJ yes the majority of the material at Hanford is left over from WWII, before I was even born! We have been fussing and fighting about that for many years, I used to live nearby and saw so many possibilities blocked by politics while the problem festered. Today it is well past the festering stage as there are leaks and radio actives in the ground water headed for the Columbia.

 

There is also waste stored there from the liquid metal reactor test programs the Navy instituted and even some from the Air Force's nuke bomber (a nuke powered bomber is cool) project as well as a bunch of other research projects, mostly DoD sponsored.

 

 

It isn't that there aren't solutions that are workable and safe it is that there are so many folks making so much money from the problem that they can spend a fortune keeping us from solving the problem and cutting their income. Yucca mountain isn't a solution any more than the waste holding tanks at Hanford are, kicking the can down the road is not a solution unless you hate your grandkids.

 

 

If you like Science Fiction I can recommend a couple books, one on long term storage and one on nuke bombers both of which I have in my collection.

 

A Canticle for Leibowitz by Miller, Walter M. Jr. (no relation)

http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=A+Canticle+for+Leibowitz

 

 

Steam Bird by Hilbert Schenck

 

http://smile.amazon.com/Steam-Bird-Hilbert-Schenck/dp/0812554000/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426366366&sr=1-2

 

 

 

[wa_desert_rat]

 

I presume you understand that the Hanford wastes have nothing to do with civilian reactor usage and are entirely the result of the nuclear weapons program. Much of the waste dates to the Manhattan project and the early years of the Cold War. The Hanford site housed the original production reactors that created the plutonium used in the weapon dropped on Nagasaki. Those reactors continued to be used to produce plutonium for the weapons program.

Actually there is still a nuclear plant operating on the Hanford reservation (only about 50 miles due south of me as I type this). It is operated by Energy Northwest,the successor to WPPS (which repudiated $250 million in public bonds in the 1980s after rampant corruption was discovered). They changed their name after the bond debacle.

 

Corruption in the power industry is nothing new. In fact, it's rampant. Grant County PUD, just north of Hanford, has two dams on the Columbia River (Wanapum Dam and Priest Rapids Dam). Wanapum Dam, the first to be constructed, was just repaired after one major pier-block was discovered to be displaced a couple of inches downstream. Investigation showed that there was insufficient rebar used in the construction. Since rebar is hidden inside the concrete, it's a favorite place to skimp on materials; which allows the contractor (and whichever inpectors they've paid off) to get away with money. Here is an article about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Generating_Station

 

Grant PUD was also involved in a scheme to drive local ISPs out of business by creating a secret contract with Benton REA (another public power entity) to enter Grant County's Internet business in competition with other businesses. Grant PUD agreed to reimburse Benton REA 110% of their actual costs in that contract. A Seattle attorney discovered the fraud. 5 high level employees of the PUD left. No one went to jail. Several local ISPs were driven out of business before the fraud was discovered. A lawsuit against the PUD failed on a technicality. http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2003/firms.htm gives much of the story. It is well worth reading.

 

Two reasons why I am skeptical of nuclear power plants.

 

WDR

[Vladimir]

One months statistics is worthless for trend analysis.

 

I did look at new generating capacity in California over the past two years. It was about 30 percent wind and solar. 70 percent natural gas turbines.

 

So the question is California into renewables or just using them to build more natural gas plants?

 

BTW.....Forbes had an interesting article on the price of natural gas nationwide due to California demand for thr product.

[wa_desert_rat]

One months statistics is worthless for trend analysis.

 

I did look at new generating capacity in California over the past two years. It was about 30 percent wind and solar. 70 percent natural gas turbines.

 

So the question is California into renewables or just using them to build more natural gas plants?

 

BTW.....Forbes had an interesting article on the price of natural gas nationwide due to California demand for thr product.

I agree that one month is statistically meaningless; but it's interesting that it was in January. I wonder if the difference in the weather patterns between the east coast and the west coast had anything to do with this. Probably pretty hard to build much of anything on the east coast last January but the west coast was having fine weather.

 

I think that one of the big issues with "renewables" is going to be load management on the grid. With 50% (or more) capability from renwables during peak sun, we're going to need fast-acting generation from other sources to be able to quickly react to changes in conditions. While hydro can modulate power generation the largest hydro plants are in the PNW and they are subject to salmon mitigation (meaning that they must release water - without using it to generate power - in order to help salmon; even if they'd prefer to save the water for power. So natural gas and coal plants will still be around. But they'll be much different.

 

The grid itself will need to be updated even more than it has over the past 6 years. One new wrinkle is "microgrids" which can be self-sufficient in the event of the larger grid (to which they're usually connected) is impaired. Since the big storm in NJ the Obama Administration has pumped a lot of money into this technology trying to ensure that the loss of one part of the grid doesn't result in the loss of the entire grid itself.

 

And the question becomes, "who pays for the grid?" Right now the costs involved with maintaining the existing grid is folded into our power bill. If you have a grid-tie solar system then you'll have to pony up your share of those costs; presumably by taking a hit on how much you get paid for the power you put back into the grid.

 

No matter how you cut it, there is going to be a lot of upheaval in the utility business over the next decade.

 

WDR

[RV_]

Nuclear reading:

http://www.intellectualventureslab.com/about/relationships/terrapower

 

This idea is not new:

 

 

 

 

Solar Electricity Now Under Half The Cost Of Grid Power For Australian Households

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/07/solar-electricity-now-under-half-the-cost-of-grid-power-for-australian-households/

 

Storing solar and wind being done, not being developed:

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/27/irelands-first-combined-ultracapacitor-energy-storage-facility/?utm_source=Cleantechnica+News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=727030b6d2-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b9b83ee7eb-727030b6d2-331970081

 

 

GE Japan Installing Energy Storage System + LED Lighting At “Future Disaster-Proof Factory Plan” Pilot

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/ge-japan-installing-energy-storage-system-led-lighting-future-disaster-proof-factory-plan-pilot/

 

The German energy shift article I posted earlier, when read in full, shows them on track to all sustainable renewable energy by 2050. Their one day excerpts being published shows how much further along only a newly developed partial system can be on a good day. When it is all installed the figures with battery and supercapacitor hybrids, batteries yet to be developed, and other discoveries along the way in the next 35 years are exciting for me. If I live to 97 I might even see them by the light of my own solar system. (Pun int.)

 

I hope everyone's weekend was a joy. Mine was. Have a great week folks!

Enjoy!

 

[wa_desert_rat]

Solar Electricity Now Under Half The Cost Of Grid Power For Australian Households

The article says that at 15 cents per kw/h the total cost of solar is about half what Australians pay for power from the grid. That would make their kw/h price from the grid around 30 cents per kw/h which is about 3 times the average price per kw/h we pay in the US. In Ontario rate payers are talking about insurrection over 15 cents per kw/h. And it does sound pretty expensive to someone paying 7 to 10 cents.

 

So far my best argument in favor of solar has been to ask detractors how long it takes for their connection to the grid to "pay out".

 

WDR

[Vladimir]

I agree that one month is statistically meaningless; but it's interesting that it was in January. I wonder if the difference in the weather patterns between the east coast and the west coast had anything to do with this. Probably pretty hard to build much of anything on the east coast last January but the west coast was having fine weather.

 

I think that one of the big issues with "renewables" is going to be load management on the grid. With 50% (or more) capability from renwables during peak sun, we're going to need fast-acting generation from other sources to be able to quickly react to changes in conditions. While hydro can modulate power generation the largest hydro plants are in the PNW and they are subject to salmon mitigation (meaning that they must release water - without using it to generate power - in order to help salmon; even if they'd prefer to save the water for power. So natural gas and coal plants will still be around. But they'll be much different.

 

The grid itself will need to be updated even more than it has over the past 6 years. One new wrinkle is "microgrids" which can be self-sufficient in the event of the larger grid (to which they're usually connected) is impaired. Since the big storm in NJ the Obama Administration has pumped a lot of money into this technology trying to ensure that the loss of one part of the grid doesn't result in the loss of the entire grid itself.

 

And the question becomes, "who pays for the grid?" Right now the costs involved with maintaining the existing grid is folded into our power bill. If you have a grid-tie solar system then you'll have to pony up your share of those costs; presumably by taking a hit on how much you get paid for the power you put back into the grid.

 

No matter how you cut it, there is going to be a lot of upheaval in the utility business over the next decade.

 

WDR

Your last sentence is interesting. I have a friend that tracks utility issues and that is his take on it.

 

Couple of comments. For Chelan County PUD the spilled water for salmon IS run through the turbines. I suspect it is similar for other dams with downstream smolt migration in the spring. That is why wind is so stupid in the northwest. We already have excess power during that ime of year. So the Federal government is forced to buy it and dump it. Dropping the price PUD get on the secondary market. Cost the residents of central washington a lot of money!

 

On some other forums I noticed that some east coast utilities have split their billing. There is now a cost for the grid connection and a separate cost for electricity used. It appeared that the connection cost is 60 percent of the bill and that is at east coast electrical rates!

 

That will change the economics of grid-tie solar roof systems if the major portion of your bill will still be due and payable!

It might also encourage on-grid users to disconnect and go to battery back up systems.

 

So your comment about fiber and ISP's on PUD systems. Most PUD's have come to the conclusion that they need to retail cable, phone, and internet services to break even on fiber systems without using the electrical sales to pay for fiber. I know Chelan County took no position on the bill,but the Commissioners are concerned about the viability of the wholesale system currently in place.

 

On micro-grids in 2000 the mid-Columbia PUD's were ready to disconnect if the west coast grid was going down. At least, in our case we are a "micro-grid". I remember the PUD saying the lights might go out in Seattle, but they would stay on in Wenatchee! After getting pressure to explain the comment....the answer was we will disconnect!

 

Interesting times coming soon in the power business.

[wa_desert_rat]

Your last sentence is interesting. I have a friend that tracks utility issues and that is his take on it.

 

Couple of comments. For Chelan County PUD the spilled water for salmon IS run through the turbines. I suspect it is similar for other dams with downstream smolt migration in the spring. That is why wind is so stupid in the northwest. We already have excess power during that ime of year. So the Federal government is forced to buy it and dump it. Dropping the price PUD get on the secondary market. Cost the residents of central washington a lot of money!

 

On some other forums I noticed that some east coast utilities have split their billing. There is now a cost for the grid connection and a separate cost for electricity used. It appeared that the connection cost is 60 percent of the bill and that is at east coast electrical rates!

 

That will change the economics of grid-tie solar roof systems if the major portion of your bill will still be due and payable!

It might also encourage on-grid users to disconnect and go to battery back up systems.

 

So your comment about fiber and ISP's on PUD systems. Most PUD's have come to the conclusion that they need to retail cable, phone, and internet services to break even on fiber systems without using the electrical sales to pay for fiber. I know Chelan County took no position on the bill,but the Commissioners are concerned about the viability of the wholesale system currently in place.

 

On micro-grids in 2000 the mid-Columbia PUD's were ready to disconnect if the west coast grid was going down. At least, in our case we are a "micro-grid". I remember the PUD saying the lights might go out in Seattle, but they would stay on in Wenatchee! After getting pressure to explain the comment....the answer was we will disconnect!

 

Interesting times coming soon in the power business.

The wind power system is run by "Energy Northwest". This is the same outfit that was once called "Washington Public Power System" or "WPPS" and which has the distinction of mismanaging nuclear power to the tune of $250 million in repudiated municipal bonds in the 90s.

 

The NJ microgrid is said to be pretty sophisticated; far more so than simply being able to be isolated from the main grid. This has been implemented since (and as a result of) Supertorm Sandy.

 

The PUDs came to the conclusion that they wanted to be retail providers way back in early 2000. In fact, once the state Legislature denied that to them, they worked hard to prove that they were the ONLY ones who could do it. That was their position and Grant County PUD was caught red-handed illegally bribing an out-of-area power provider (Benton REA) with over $1 million of public money in a secret contract designed to drive local ISPs out of business and prove their point. Not only that, but Noanet was created by the PUDs as a "non profit" corporation. Since a public entity cannot create a private corporation using public money, that has been an issue since 2003. But Noanet, also a big recipient of the Obama stimulus of 2009, has been squandering public money ever since.

 

On grid-tie charges, I have pretty much decided to leave my work shop on the grid but install solar and battery backup for the apartment side with no connection to the grid.

 

WDR

[sushidog]

It's the old owning vs renting argument. Theoretically, owning is cheaper in the long run, but considering the time value of money and all incidental costs, maintenance, repairs often it is not. Remember, that though solar panels may continue to produce energy after they are paid for (though at a declining rate), it's the batteries, inverters and chargers that will eventually wear out and need to be replaced, so that your solar energy is never truly "free" even after your system is paid for. In fact, batteries alone will cost around 19 cents per usable kw/hr (whether you choose FLAs or Lithiums - going with AGMs are even more expensive). This cost by itself exceeds even inflated monthly CG electric rates.

 

Subsidies make the initial price of a solar system economically attractive in today's market, (especially when the government subsidy can be applied to your initial battery purchase - making the high initial cost of LiFePo4s more affordable.) Without these subsidies, the batteries alone make solar a more expensive proposition on a cost/kw basis compared to grid power. However I don't think this is a valid comparison, as it ignores the inherent advantages of solar, namely energy independence, portability (such as in RV use) and convenience (not being tied to a campground a month at a time to get a decent rate) all of which add value. But the real economic advantage is saving on the incidental costs, which in the case of RVers is campground fees, which amount to several times the cost of grid produced power, even with the campground's markup, making a cost/kw.hr. comparison irrelevant. When you consider this savings then you can talk about a break-even point on your initial investment, but without it you cannot (except for a highly subsidized, batteryless, grid-tie residential system.) It seems that with todays storage costs, the energy storage component, not the energy production component of a solar or wind system is its limiting, competing factor.

 

Chip

[wa_desert_rat]

 

It seems that with todays storage costs, the energy storage component, not the energy production component of a solar or wind system is its limiting, competing factor.

Let me put this as simply as I can: THE GRID IS THE STORAGE. At least for the vast majority of grid-tied solar systems because they do not include batteries or charge controllers. All they are is a combination of panel arrays and a grid-tied inverter. If there is not enough power generated by solar or wind then someone fires up another natural-gas boiler or puts another hydro turbine on line.

 

We ALREADY have enough old-style power generating plants to supply everything we need. All we have to do is install enough grid-tie, distributed, solar systems to replace the ones that wear out or break down. Given that our power demands are actually reducing (due to lower power devices like LED lights, etc.) we should be able to cover things nicely.

 

If the grid goes down then only the houses with solar and an inverter will have power; and then only during the day. Only the houses with a back up system will have power at night.

 

But given the costs of battery backup most home owners contemplating solar will skip that part. After all, running your fridge for 3 or 4 hours a day in the event of a grid power outage is still better than nothing.

 

Once you grasp that concept - the grid is the storage - then you grasp the power of distributed solar power systems. No huge buildout of the grid to new nuclear plants needed (or $10 billion costs for the plant, either).

 

Yes, solar panels do degrade (it helps to keep them out of the sun to avoid UV damage) (that's a joke) and inverters probably do too. But no batteries needed. And, really, we're pretty much at the point of no subsidies needed. Because you can get an entire 5kw grid-tie system for well under $10,000. And that will pay out.

 

Unlike your connection to the grid.

 

WDR

[bigjim]

I have 2 100watt panels and had 3 deepcycles on the trailer. They paid off themselves the most when the power went out in hot and humid conditions for over a week and I could at least have a little lighting a little tv ( a small one) and when I could run a 12in. fan on me round the clock if necessary. It make me want to have at least this set up for my room in the nursing home. There is room for all of it and sometimes the payoff isn't totally monetary. Even if we are not able to store it every bit we use to save the non-renewables is useful to extend the life of non-renewables. It won't help me so much but might help the ungrateful grandkids. Just a poor dumb guy thoughts.

 

Again I am not as concerned for myself unless we really do come back in another life, but I am highly concerned about mankind dealing with nuclear waste. I personally know of a shipment headed to the WIPP storage site that was dumped down ravine in barrels in the mountains and recovered overnight without the public ever being told. There are issues at the WIPP site right now due to human error or more likely short cuts and no proper oversight.

[sushidog]

Let me put this as simply as I can: THE GRID IS THE STORAGE. At least for the vast majority of grid-tied solar systems because they do not include batteries or charge controllers. All they are is a combination of panel arrays and a grid-tied inverter. If there is not enough power generated by solar or wind then someone fires up another natural-gas boiler or puts another hydro turbine on line.

 

We ALREADY have enough old-style power generating plants to supply everything we need. All we have to do is install enough grid-tie, distributed, solar systems to replace the ones that wear out or break down. Given that our power demands are actually reducing (due to lower power devices like LED lights, etc.) we should be able to cover things nicely.

 

If the grid goes down then only the houses with solar and an inverter will have power; and then only during the day. Only the houses with a back up system will have power at night.

 

But given the costs of battery backup most home owners contemplating solar will skip that part. After all, running your fridge for 3 or 4 hours a day in the event of a grid power outage is still better than nothing.

 

Once you grasp that concept - the grid is the storage - then you grasp the power of distributed solar power systems. No huge buildout of the grid to new nuclear plants needed (or $10 billion costs for the plant, either).

 

Yes, solar panels do degrade (it helps to keep them out of the sun to avoid UV damage) (that's a joke) and inverters probably do too. But no batteries needed. And, really, we're pretty much at the point of no subsidies needed. Because you can get an entire 5kw grid-tie system for well under $10,000. And that will pay out.

 

Unlike your connection to the grid.

 

WDR

Let me clarify. Since this an RV forum I was primarily referring to mobile, off-grid solar systems, which is why I included saving CG fees as part the ROI, offsetting battery costs. If I want to run my electrical equipment in my RV when off-grid and the sun isn't shining I will need a battery bank. No way around it.

 

For grid tie systems, most Louisiana solar installers charge from $3-$3.50/watt these days. They can because the state and fed govt. subsidizes 80% - so they are getting rich off the taxpayers. Of course with an 80% subsidy there's a relatively quick payback. However without such a subsidy it would depend on the interest rate one would have to pay, how much the power company charges for grid access (since they currently credit the consumer at retail energy rates, not wholesale rates and must pay to maintain the grid) and prevailing electric rates as to whether or not consumers can recover their costs in a reasonable period of time. Obviously someone paying 34 cents per kw/hr in sunny Hawaii will recover their costs more quickly than someone paying less than 7 cents per kw/hr in sun starved Washington state.)

 

I think if the government got out of the subsidy business and let the price of solar systems drop to their fair market price (around $1.50-$2.00/watt currently) then a true ROI could be calculated for each location. Believe me, I am all for solar. I'd like to see it on nearly every roof, it's just that I want to see it succeed on its own merits (as I believe it can, just not in every instance) and we will all be better off.

 

Chip

[wa_desert_rat]

 

Again I am not as concerned for myself unless we really do come back in another life, but I am highly concerned about mankind dealing with nuclear waste. I personally know of a shipment headed to the WIPP storage site that was dumped down ravine in barrels in the mountains and recovered overnight without the public ever being told. There are issues at the WIPP site right now due to human error or more likely short cuts and no proper oversight.

Haven't you heard? Regulations hinder capitalism.

 

This issue is typically glossed over by saying something like, "Only xx people worldwide have ever been killed in a nuclear accident". This number typically includes only direct deaths and not indirect deaths from cancer, etc. Often any mention of this is treated as political rhetoric.

 

Interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll (note that this counts direct and indirect deaths and injuries from both nuclear accidents and radiation incidents).

 

This article, alone, counts almost 1 million deaths as a result of Chernobyl; mainly cancer: http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908

 

Yet we get this statement: "Ironically Nuclear power has consistently proven itself to be safer, less dangerous to the environment, substantially less of an issue towards climate change and equal to or less radioactive and mercury filled when we compare coal ash to reactor water, yet most consider nuclear power to be far too dangerous;"

 

So the politicization continues. Just like "global climate change" it depends upon who you choose to believe.

 

One thing remains clear: No one has ever had to evacuate and isolate a city because the solar panels broke.

 

WDR

[wa_desert_rat]

I think if the government got out of the subsidy business and let the price of solar systems drop to their fair market price (around $1.50-$2.00/watt currently) then a true ROI could be calculated for each location. Believe me, I am all for solar. I'd like to see it on nearly every roof, it's just that I want to see it succeed on its own merits (as I believe it can, just not in every instance) and we will all be better off.

 

Actually, this web site might be about RVs but this particular forum is about "Finances and Investing".

 

Subsidies are supposed to be used to "incentivize" (gee, that wasn't even a word when I was in college... and this marks the very first time I've used it) something that will eventually save the public money in other ways. Cleaner air and water. Safer transportation. Better schools. The thinking is that if something that is eventually going to be good for us costs too much to implement right now than some equivalent that is not good for us, then it's worth spending money now to encourage its adoption.

 

LA has clearly gone beyond the pale by offering 50% tax credit for solar installations of under $25,000. That, along with the 30% Federal tax credit adds up to 80% back.

 

But WA is far less generous; amounting to 3% over 25 years. Mostly from guaranteed purchase (which expired in 2009).

 

So if you want to feel better about accepting a tax credit for solar, do it in WA.

 

But I used to work in LA and clearly remember what my impressions of the air, water and land were like. And I'd never consider moving there, subsidies to solar or not. I don't blame them for trying to move quickly to solar.

 

So the question is: If it costs money to reduce the problems to the environment that technology "A" causes then why isn't it reasonable to spend money to install Technology "B" if that will do it?

 

Of course people can simply deny that Technology "A" (or any thing else) has created problems. After all, the Dunning-Kruger effect says that everyone thinks they know just as much about an issue as anyone else.

 

As I indicated earlier, there will be a serious bump in the power utilities' road over the next decade that they are far more likely to try to resolve using politics than they are using technology.

 

WDR

[Darryl&Rita]

Meanwhile, in Arizona. More here, and here. Sheesh.

[wa_desert_rat]

Meanwhile, in Arizona. More here, and here. Sheesh.

Interesting stuff but not surprising. Utility companies have suddenly realized that their cushy jobs are no longer safe; nor are the jobs they give to their cousins, sons and daughters, and drinking pals. (I asked Grant County PUD officials why their executives were so highly paid (well over $100k a year in a rural area where a waterfront house costs about $300k) and was told that they have to compete all over the country for people. So I asked them why it was that after competing all over the country they just hired on their relatives. No answer.)

 

What is very likely to happen is that the utilities will impose extraordinary rates (always in the name of "fairness", of course) and drive lots of home owners off the grid. Or do what I plan to do, wire a combination of on-grid/off-grid where my heavy draw equipment (air compressors, welders, freezers, hot water heaters, clothes drayer, air conditioners) are on the grid but everything else is on solar/batteries and off the grid. I also plan to put some appliances on natural gas (or even propane... which offers an incentive in that home owners get a much cheaper rate for propane than RVs do... but when they fill your home tank they'll fill your RV tank at the same time and at the same rate).

 

But eventually the utilities will lose the war and end up controlling only the grid itself (under regulations) and high demand power generation. This will happen in the EU first and then AU and finally the US. In the meantime China and India will solarize to the maximum (China is already doing this) and Africa will discover off-the-grid advantages (no exorbitant costs to bring the grid to isolated villages, water pumps, etc.).

 

This is really all inevitable. But fight it they will.

 

WDR

[bigjim]

"So I asked them why it was that after competing all over the country they just hired on their relatives. No answer."

"One thing remains clear: No one has ever had to evacuate and isolate a city because the solar panels broke."

 

I must have missed the memo that we were shifting into comedy..........but good comedy I'll say.

 

I would not be against nuclear if I thought we could get it right. Maybe someday but not now. No I don't trust business to get it right or the government either necessarily. It depends on the quality of the folks you have dealing with it and you don't always know until the damage is done just like the ones that have gone wrong already.

 

It is too bad that sometimes you need subsidies to get the ball rolling but sometimes you just do to avoid being caught short on the back end. Of course as frustrating as it is there will be waste. From the political side for some it is wrong to subsidize on one side but it is all right to subsidize tax abatement to get business to move to your area or do some business you want done. If the government had not subsized rural electrification and water systems who knows who might still be waiting for it. I think there may still be some waiting. I know some of the Navajos just got running water this year but probably not all of them.

 

I still like the idea some kind of minimal back up for times like extended power outages. That could help me not be totally at the mercy of the "grid". I would not want my back up connected to the grid at all.

[wa_desert_rat]

I still like the idea some kind of minimal back up for times like extended power outages. That could help me not be totally at the mercy of the "grid". I would not want my back up connected to the grid at all.

I'll be here all week.

 

If you had a grid-tie system all you'd need would be a good charger, a couple of batteries, and a PSW inverter sized for whatever it was you wanted to power. Then an extension cord. That would be safely off the grid but since the grid-tie inverter should still be working (just disconnected when the grid power goes down) it should still work.

 

WDR

[skp51443]

The link to Arizona highlights a political issue more than anything, the folks selling solar want the non-solar customers to support the solar ones grid costs so their deal looks sweeter. The utility doesn't want to do the right thing and split the bill into a connection fee and a power cost fee. The lawyers are getting rich off this and the political types are fattening their campaign coffers.

 

The reasonable solution, as with Net Neutrality was never seriously considered as it put gravy on nobody's potatoes except the consumer.

 

Meanwhile, in Arizona. More here, and here. Sheesh.

 

Sucks for the consumers on both sides as they get to pay the legal fees.

[RV_]

Guess no one read the link in my last post about traveling wave reactors that use the nuclear waste from previous nuke plants as their only fuel? We are about 15 years from a TW test reactor Some good posts tho.

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

My son-in-law is on the Texas Governor's Nuclear Power Commission. I recently asked him about some of the alternative nuclear plant designs that would solve the spent rod situation.

 

His answer is that since the nuclear industry is so stifled by regulations and the lack of forward progress of known solutions, there is little funding for possible alternative solutions. Lots of papers will be written of what could be but the odds of seeing the alternative solutions are slim and none.