CA sets solar record, even as subsidies fade

cawacko

Well-known member
Anyone here have solar on their homes? What are the pluses and minuses of using solar?



CA sets solar record, even as subsidies fade


California’s rebate program for homeowners who go solar is winding down, the money nearly spent. But it’s still setting a few records before the end.

In 2012, Californians installed enough rooftop solar panels to generate a record 391 megawatts of electricity, according to a rebate program update issued Wednesday by the state. That’s up 26 percent from 2011.

Oh, and those numbers don’t even include Los Angeles and Sacramento. The California Solar Initiative provides rebates to customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., while both L.A. and Sacramento have their own municipal utilities covered under different solar incentives.

Launched in 2007, the $2.4 billion program was supposed to help fund the installation of 1,940 megawatts of solar power by 2016. According to Wednesday’s update from the California Public Utilities Commission, the CSI program has installed about 66 percent of its total goal, with another 19 percent in pending projects.

Last year’s record installation came even as the rebates dwindled away.

By design, the rebates started big in 2007 but scaled back over time, dropping from $2.50 per watt for residential projects to 20 cents. But even as the rebates were falling, so were installation prices. A residential solar system in California now costs about $5.78 per watt, according to state data. When the rebates began, the average cost was $9.79 per watt.

California still incentivizes solar. Homeowners whose solar systems generate more electricity than they need get a credit on their utility bills under a system called “net energy metering.” Utility companies now want to cut that incentive, arguing it unfairly shifts costs onto their non-solar customers. Solar companies and their advocates are fighting to keep net metering intact.

Regardless of how that debate plays out, Wednesday’s figures suggest that the solar industry in California has reached a point where its growth is becoming less dependent on the size of its subsidies. It may not be ready to fly on its own yet, but it’s getting closer.


http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2013/07/11/ca-sets-solar-record-even-as-subsidies-fade/
 
I would love to go solar but unfortunately it is not economically feasible for me at this time. I did some investigating into it a few years back and the initial investment to implement a reliable system was pretty substantial. Maybe when my place is paid for I'll look into it again.
 
I would love to go solar but unfortunately it is not economically feasible for me at this time. I did some investigating into it a few years back and the initial investment to implement a reliable system was pretty substantial. Maybe when my place is paid for I'll look into it again.

Ditto.
 
Anyone here have solar on their homes? What are the pluses and minuses of using solar?

I'm off-grid, so I use solar/batteries augmented by generator.

A friend in Colorado is grid-tied, so they have panels but no batteries.

My shorthand notes:
> Batteries are a pain. Won't go into the long story of our woes, but battery technology needs improvement. So if you are grid-tied, I wouldn't bother with batteries. (downside is, if you lose utility power in a grid-tied system, and it's night, you have no power. Possibly even in the day - I've heard some systems are wired so that if utility loses power, solar panels won't feed power either)

> Panels are great in sunny areas if you have the exposure and some place to put them. Ours aren't on our roof for a couple reasons; we have the acreage to have them out a little way from the house. Still visible, but we don't mind giving up the land covered by the panels because we have sufficient other land.

> We have one fixed array, one rotating array. Rotating is good in that you get maximum power. This won't work for roof-mounted panels.

> Our friends in Colorado have a large house; two offices in it; electric heaters in the offices; a freezer in addition to the frig; they run swamp cooler most of the summer, furnace most of the winter; and they love lots of Christmas lights. At the end of the year, they either get a few hundred dollars back or owe a few hundred. I think they have 35 panels. Totally worth it for them.

> Off-grid is very different situation, which is what we have. We have to be very cognizant of power usage. We don't leave the furnace or swamp cooler running overnight; we've done our best to reduce power usage in AV and audio system, etc. But that's very different from being grid-tied. We were undersized initially (long story) but are doing good now.

There are solar companies now that will install panels and let you pay back over time, so the hope is you save enough from power bills to make the payments and then, when they are paid off, you're doing good!

FYI, when we first installed, we were not able to use California's tax credits because we weren't grid-tied. Since then, as we've added stuff or bought new batteries, we have gotten some tax credits or deductions under (I think) a federal program. But we were at least a mile from the nearest electrical pole, so pulling electric was cost-prohibitive.

I say go for it - I wish our local town would help our local businesses put panels on the roofs of all the businesses; there's tons of sun, it could really help their costs. We have two hotels in town that have installed a large number of panels. Very cool.
 
Thanks for the response tekkychick. I'm not asking you to tell me where you live but based upon some of your previous posts, especially that you had two Republicans running for the House seat, I'm going to guess you don't live on the coast? (I don't mean that in a judgmental way just to my knowledge most costal areas are "blue" and inland more "red")

I live in a high rise condo building so solar isn't an option for me.
 
Thanks for the response tekkychick. I'm not asking you to tell me where you live but based upon some of your previous posts, especially that you had two Republicans running for the House seat, I'm going to guess you don't live on the coast? (I don't mean that in a judgmental way just to my knowledge most costal areas are "blue" and inland more "red")

I live in a high rise condo building so solar isn't an option for me.

Right, I'm in an inland very red county... Moved here from the bay area; I sure miss my blue county!

Yeah, if you're in a condo building, solar won't do much for you. Guess everyone could band together and put panels on the roof, but probably not going to happen....
 
Right, I'm in an inland very red county... Moved here from the bay area; I sure miss my blue county!

Yeah, if you're in a condo building, solar won't do much for you. Guess everyone could band together and put panels on the roof, but probably not going to happen....

Not to get off subject but you know in Oakland and San Francisco Republicans don't even run for office. In the nine country Bay Area I don't believe there is an elected Republican. (Interesting stat I saw Napa County voted for G.H.W. Bush in 1988. That's the last Bay Area county to vote for a Republican President.) Every statewide office in California is held by a Democrat. I'm pretty much in liberal heaven!
 
I'd love to have solar but not quite yet. I'll wait until prices go down.

What tickles me is the great grandparents of the same people dissing solar power today poo-poo'd electricity and the internal combustion engine a hundred years ago as elitist toys.
 
Not to get off subject but you know in Oakland and San Francisco Republicans don't even run for office. In the nine country Bay Area I don't believe there is an elected Republican. (Interesting stat I saw Napa County voted for G.H.W. Bush in 1988. That's the last Bay Area county to vote for a Republican President.) Every statewide office in California is held by a Democrat. I'm pretty much in liberal heaven!

I so love our blue state! just sorry about my red county. Sigh.

The guy Ellen Tauscher beat awhile ago... oh, what was his name? Bill Baker! that was it! Back in 1996. He was a republican who seemed almost unbeatable until they came up with Ms. Tauscher - fiscally conservative Democrat - and took his seat. That was in the San Ramon/Pleasanton area, for congress, not state office. EMILY'S List suggested her to local Dems who recruited her. Since then we've gotten bluer and bluer! except in my county... sigh. Well, guess they have to live somewhere.

We're keeping up the good fight though! Lots of visibility, even with small numbers.
 
Anyone here have solar on their homes? What are the pluses and minuses of using solar?



CA sets solar record, even as subsidies fade


California’s rebate program for homeowners who go solar is winding down, the money nearly spent. But it’s still setting a few records before the end.

In 2012, Californians installed enough rooftop solar panels to generate a record 391 megawatts of electricity, according to a rebate program update issued Wednesday by the state. That’s up 26 percent from 2011.

Oh, and those numbers don’t even include Los Angeles and Sacramento. The California Solar Initiative provides rebates to customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., while both L.A. and Sacramento have their own municipal utilities covered under different solar incentives.

Launched in 2007, the $2.4 billion program was supposed to help fund the installation of 1,940 megawatts of solar power by 2016. According to Wednesday’s update from the California Public Utilities Commission, the CSI program has installed about 66 percent of its total goal, with another 19 percent in pending projects.

Last year’s record installation came even as the rebates dwindled away.

By design, the rebates started big in 2007 but scaled back over time, dropping from $2.50 per watt for residential projects to 20 cents. But even as the rebates were falling, so were installation prices. A residential solar system in California now costs about $5.78 per watt, according to state data. When the rebates began, the average cost was $9.79 per watt.

California still incentivizes solar. Homeowners whose solar systems generate more electricity than they need get a credit on their utility bills under a system called “net energy metering.” Utility companies now want to cut that incentive, arguing it unfairly shifts costs onto their non-solar customers. Solar companies and their advocates are fighting to keep net metering intact.

Regardless of how that debate plays out, Wednesday’s figures suggest that the solar industry in California has reached a point where its growth is becoming less dependent on the size of its subsidies. It may not be ready to fly on its own yet, but it’s getting closer.


http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2013/07/11/ca-sets-solar-record-even-as-subsidies-fade/

I have solar at my mountain retreat. Very awesome. Enough to power our scaled backe meager existence. I use wood heat and have a backup LP generator. The mountain retreat is only 1000 sq ft so it doesn't need much juice.

You need southern exposure and as Tekky said tracking panels are best especially in winter months. Batteries are key and you need enogh to store power during a stretch of crappy days.
 
I have solar at my mountain retreat. Very awesome. Enough to power our scaled backe meager existence. I use wood heat and have a backup LP generator. The mountain retreat is only 1000 sq ft so it doesn't need much juice.

You need southern exposure and as Tekky said tracking panels are best especially in winter months. Batteries are key and you need enogh to store power during a stretch of crappy days.


In other words.....solar is almost useless.
 
In other words.....solar is almost useless.

Damn. And yet it's my major power source. And it means my friends - power users galore - pay their utility company practically nothing and often get money back.

That's almost useless?

Lot of places in the US have a LOT Of sun. "almost useless"? I don't think so!
 
In other words.....solar is almost useless.

No. But it has limitations. I can't power a 3500 sq foot house with every modern amenity with the array and battery set up I use,but it is enough for my mountain retreat. I don't pay any electric bills and I have never had to use the LP backup. Still makes sense to have a backup.

It keeps the lights on, runs freezers and powers the iPads and phones. What else do I need?

You be surprised what you can live without
 
No. But it has limitations. I can't power a 3500 sq foot house with every modern amenity with the array and battery set up I use,but it is enough for my mountain retreat. I don't pay any electric bills and I have never had to use the LP backup. Still makes sense to have a backup.

It keeps the lights on, runs freezers and powers the iPads and phones. What else do I need?

You be surprised what you can live without

So totally random but after closing a bar tonight many males (at least 18 years old) will live without pussy as they commit acts that send them to prison for life.
 
I agree, ILA, it's all about how you size the array and batteries.

Our friends in Colorado have a lot more panels than we do.

When we first did our system, it was too small; we had to double the size of the array. Left the batteries alone; they're adequate.

We are looking at getting higher capacity panels so batteries get recharged more quickly since panel prices are coming down. One of many projects!
 
Back
Top