the death of coal?
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 |
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?
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |