the death of coal?

Page 2 of 32<12345>Last »
July 22nd, 2015 at 2:44:28 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
It's a bit shocking that Florida's laws prevent homeowners from installing rooftop solar panels. So a tiny Northern state like New Jersey generates 12X more electricty from solar as Florida (1,366 MW compared to 111 MW). Even Masachusetts' solar output is quadruple that of Florida's (488 MW compared to 111 MW.) Florida has a total of 2,098 solar systems installed statewide; California has over 271,000 systems installed! Yup, Florida is getting screwed.

And the real scandal? Florida spends $1.3 billion per year importing 14 million tons of coal. They're just burning big piles of money for absolutely no reason. It'd be if like Alaska started importing farmed salmon from Indiana.
July 22nd, 2015 at 4:47:08 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: reno
It's a bit shocking that Florida's laws prevent homeowners from installing rooftop solar panels. So a tiny Northern state like New Jersey generates 12X more electricty from solar as Florida (1,366 MW compared to 111 MW). Even Masachusetts' solar output is quadruple that of Florida's (488 MW compared to 111 MW.) Florida has a total of 2,098 solar systems installed statewide; California has over 271,000 systems installed! Yup, Florida is getting screwed.

And the real scandal? Florida spends $1.3 billion per year importing 14 million tons of coal. They're just burning big piles of money for absolutely no reason. It'd be if like Alaska started importing farmed salmon from Indiana.


It looks like they are not "banning" them, what they are doing is saying you cannot send your excess power thru the grid. I've heard this one before. Look at it from the utility POV. They invest in power generation. If they are forced to take power from everyone who gets solar panels then their capital plans are put in jeopardy. The firms mentioned in the article are giving away panels, in return it appears they are marketing their electricity to the utility who was forced to purchase it.

Methinks you would be totally free to put in panels as long as you isolated them from returning power to the grid. However, this negates much of the benefit of installation as part of the benefit is sale of surplus power.
The President is a fink.
July 22nd, 2015 at 5:07:53 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Ranking of states in two different ways. First by % generation capacity due to coal. West Virginia has almost entirely coal generators. Second by percent of the nations coal being used by that state. So even though Texas only generates 21% of it's electricity by coal, overall it generates far more money than any state in the SA, so it's coal generator sum to more power than the coal generators of any other state.

California and New York have very little coal generation. But given their populations electricity is very expensive in those states.

Los Angeles area households paid an average of 21.7 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity in May 2015. Would you be happy to pay that much if they took away coal from your state?

By Percent of generators Coal% By Capacity of nation Coal Capacity% %Texas
WV 87.3% TX 7.71% 1.0000
WY 77.3% IN 6.34% 0.8227
KY 71.3% OH 6.15% 0.7974
IN 67.9% KY 5.40% 0.7010
UT 62.4% IL 5.24% 0.6801
ND 61.8% PA 4.93% 0.6394
OH 56.8% WV 4.54% 0.5889
MO 54.9% GA 4.09% 0.5306
NE 47.9% MO 3.98% 0.5167
WI 44.8% AL 3.73% 0.4840
NM 42.9% MI 3.71% 0.4819
IA 41.2% FL 3.44% 0.4462
MT 40.5% NC 3.33% 0.4315
TN 39.7% TN 2.91% 0.3781
MD 37.7% WI 2.66% 0.3449
MI 36.7% IA 2.15% 0.2785
KS 35.7% WY 2.09% 0.2717
AL 35.1% AZ 2.03% 0.2638
CO 34.9% SC 1.90% 0.2470
PA 34.2% VA 1.79% 0.2328
IL 34.0% OK 1.77% 0.2299
NC 33.7% CO 1.74% 0.2263
AR 33.5% AR 1.66% 0.2159
GA 32.7% KS 1.66% 0.2153
MN 30.1% MN 1.59% 0.2069
SC 25.2% MD 1.56% 0.2022
OK 23.2% UT 1.53% 0.1981
VA 22.3% NE 1.30% 0.1681
TX 21.3% ND 1.29% 0.1669
AZ 21.3% LA 1.15% 0.1493
DE 18.1% NM 1.13% 0.1472
FL 16.8% MS 0.88% 0.1136
MS 16.5% MT 0.81% 0.1047
LA 12.4% NY 0.80% 0.1036
NH 11.8% NJ 0.65% 0.0841
NV 11.7% WA 0.44% 0.0574
SD 11.0% NV 0.44% 0.0569
NJ 10.3% MA 0.43% 0.0563
MA 9.4% OR 0.19% 0.0253
HI 6.7% DE 0.19% 0.0245
NY 6.1% NH 0.17% 0.0220
WA 4.7% SD 0.15% 0.0189
AK 4.4% CT 0.12% 0.0157
CT 4.1% CA 0.08% 0.0109
OR 4.0% HI 0.06% 0.0080
ME 2.1% AK 0.03% 0.0045
ID 0.4% ME 0.03% 0.0040
CA 0.4% ID 0.01% 0.0007
RI 0.0% RI 0.0% 0.0000
VT 0.0% VT 0.0% 0.0000
DC 0.0% DC 0.0% 0.0000


Quote: reno
And the real scandal? Florida spends $1.3 billion per year importing 14 million tons of coal. They're just burning big piles of money for absolutely no reason. It'd be if like Alaska started importing farmed salmon from Indiana.


Florida has 30 coal generators in 14 locations that are capable of generating 11 gigawatts of electricity. This map shows 15 locations but Panama city is closing it's coal generators.



Panama City Coal Plants retired
July 22nd, 2015 at 5:32:48 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
Methinks you would be totally free to put in panels as long as you isolated them from returning power to the grid. However, this negates much of the benefit of installation as part of the benefit is sale of surplus power.


I don't think the power companies should have to buy power, but they should accept and return power on an even basis. Instead of isolating them from returning power to the grid, the homeowners should be able to generate a surplus in the summer and use that surplus in the winter.

I suppose that if you did that inevitably some people would sell electricity to their neighbors.
July 22nd, 2015 at 6:36:30 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Pacomartin
I don't think the power companies should have to buy power, but they should accept and return power on an even basis. Instead of isolating them from returning power to the grid, the homeowners should be able to generate a surplus in the summer and use that surplus in the winter.

I suppose that if you did that inevitably some people would sell electricity to their neighbors.


An even basis is not fair, either. The grid does not run for free.
The President is a fink.
July 22nd, 2015 at 8:06:27 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
Look at it from the utility POV. They invest in power generation. If they are forced to take power from everyone who gets solar panels then their capital plans are put in jeopardy.


Too much big government interference. Florida's Tea Party is trying to get the state's energy market de-regulated so that citizens have the freedom to install solar panels. These are hardcore conservatives who are just trying to get a free market solution to expensive electricity in a state with too much sun. I support the Tea Party on this. I thought you would too, AZDuffman.

Yes, the utilities need to stay in business. But in other sunny areas of the U.S. with tons of solar panels (Arizona is a good example), the utilities are doing just fine. How come the utilities in California, Arizona, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Texas can do it, but Florida's utilities can't?
July 23rd, 2015 at 12:30:21 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
An even basis is not fair, either. The grid does not run for free.


Electric Power Politics: Net-Metering Gets Nasty

The distribution company still gets a customer charge for the account.

I realize that, but the power companies participate in all sorts of programs to encourage conservation. The number of customers participating in distributed generation will always be very small, because for most people the capital costs for the equipment are too high, and they would lose money even with "net metering".
July 23rd, 2015 at 2:05:42 AM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
Quote: AZDuffman
An even basis is not fair, either. The grid does not run for free.


I haven't stayed with the tech for awhile, but in all these story's lot's of info is missing.

Wind and solar as it stands today would not pay for their own construction through power sales if it weren't for some kind of tax credit from the uncle sugar.

I don't think any of these big windmills will in their lifespans be net positive for the KW used to construct them. I haven't seen one yet that would produce what is on the nameplate. So when a facility is "rated" at 2mg or 10 or whatever claimed, that is potential power creation, not actual. So in winds case the guys still working it figure around a third of nameplate.

A friend worked on one I believe in Mich. He said the whole thing weighed around 320 tons. That is not all iron but if it were, figure what the energy cost to mine the ore in Australia, ship it to China, process and smelt it and create steel, ship it to Florida to Florida power who makes a lot of windmills, manufacture the parts, put them on a truck or ship them to location, prepare many tons of rebar reinforced footings, bring in crews and tall and big cranes to erect, then the switchgear to connect it to the grid, and phase synchronising gear. They never pay for themselves in their useful lifetimes. It is all a hoax.

PV farms are similar. If a customer has some rooftop panels and wants to sell what a couple of kw's a few times per week? The cost of smoothly synchronising there production costs the power company more than the electricity produced is worth. Plus the agreements from the old days re; the rea's and rus's about buying power from produces came from thinking of hydro or some producer making a significant amount of juice.

The power company's I've been aligned with would be glad to buy power, in scale from a producer who would sell it at the power company's cost of production, they just don't want to mess with chump amounts and retail costs when it is unreliable.
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
July 23rd, 2015 at 3:40:40 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: reno
Too much big government interference. Florida's Tea Party is trying to get the state's energy market de-regulated so that citizens have the freedom to install solar panels. These are hardcore conservatives who are just trying to get a free market solution to expensive electricity in a state with too much sun. I support the Tea Party on this. I thought you would too, AZDuffman.


I support their right to have panels. I do not support making the utility buy the surplus. Petro has already answered this well so I will not repeat most of it. But I will expand on it.

The panel sellers seen to be like ads for various items sold via direct response during ads on M*A*S*H reruns. "Did you know Medicare will pay for your Rascal/Walk-in Tub/Whatever?" Residential solar panels and wind do not pay for themselves. They are "affordable" when you milk tax credits and selling dribs and drabs to the utility. This is not "free market" this is crony capitalism.

If a FL resident wants to put on a panel and proper isolation equipment to keep power from flowing to the grid have at it. Payback period will be about 20 years if I had to guess. For commercial buildings it will be less as more panels for the same isolation equipment.
The President is a fink.
July 23rd, 2015 at 6:52:37 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
I support their right to have panels. I do not support making the utility buy the surplus. Petro has already answered this well so I will not repeat most of it. But I will expand on it.
The panel sellers seen to be like ads for various items sold via direct response during ads on M*A*S*H reruns. "Did you know Medicare will pay for your Rascal/Walk-in Tub/Whatever?" Residential solar panels and wind do not pay for themselves. They are "affordable" when you milk tax credits and selling dribs and drabs to the utility. This is not "free market" this is crony capitalism.


Quote: Philly.com
By Andrew Maykuth, Inquirer Staff Writer
POSTED: April 25, 2015
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission moved forward Thursday to set controversial rules and limits for "net-metering" customers who generate their own power from sources such as solar cells. The commission tentatively adopted regulations that would allow "customer-generators" to produce up to 200 percent of their annual power needs and receive retail electricity prices for any surplus they sell back to the grid.
http://articles.philly.com/2015-04-25/business/61497727_1_the-puc-power-production-commission-chairman-robert-f


I can see your point, but surely it wouldn't hurt to have 100% net metering. The "customer-generators" would probably give much more than 100% in an effort to have a buffer against a bad month. Plus the resident would still be liable for the customer charge every month ($15 where I am, but varies with location).

As most people cannot produce electricity at costs lower than the utility, it will remain a hobby for the philosophical crowd, more than a true business.
Page 2 of 32<12345>Last »