Thorny. Not necessarily impossible to solve, but thorny. And since I don't think I made this explicit in the video, there are really two issues I have: 1) I think that pushing homeowners into spending big bucks supplying power for the grid is a little bit questionable from the start (it shouldn't be "up to us") and 2) incentive structures which make the payback timeframe for system installation quick and easy to swallow are just not sustainable and in tension with supporting the broader grid. Is there a way we could make this work better? Absolutely! But I honestly don't know if once we get there having personal rooftop solar makes any sense compared to grid-scale projects.
My local utility upped prices last year by almost an order of magnitude (my mom, year on year, went from a bill of ~$150 to over $900 for June), for no apparent reason. Luckily, our bill didn’t jump nearly as much as hers (which is definitely because we have a newer house with better insulation and a more efficient AC). That said, I live in a place where solar is completely viable for getting off the grid, but we recently bought our house and can’t really afford that upgrade atm. I don’t know if they jacked the price like that because of how much money they’re losing because so many people are switching to solar or what, but it’s pretty sus. Because solar is definitely becoming pretty common here. Anyway, my point with all that is to say that my biggest concerns with rooftop solar are 1) long-term maintenance (especially in an area prone to hurricanes and tornadoes) and 2) those unable to convert to solar getting “left behind” as the costs for fuel rise, but are distributed amongst fewer people. Yes, I understand that less people drawing from the grid means less raw cost of production, but it doesn’t mean less maintenance on the overall grid or fewer people needing to be employed across the entire system to run it and repair it. Add in cost of fuel increases (presuming the utilities aren’t converting to renewables because they figure the consumer can do that if they care), and you end up with a situation where the poorest households are paying the most for electricity because they are the only ones left propping up the old system.
There's a similar problem with EVs, we're rolling them out everywhere all at the same time but given that there are limits in terms of how many we can produce it would be far more useful to roll them out in areas with higher renewable charging opportunities first if we're trying to maximize the environmental benefits.
I'm not from US so my opinion is more global concern focused. Equality, sustainability and emission reduction, as you said is a society issue. As such, many of the valid concerns you put on the table should not be addressed on individual decisions, but on government policies. Meaning, at the end of the day, this is a climate change concern, thus it is a government responsability to address the unwanted side effects of incentivizing the use of private individual power generation. It should not be unfair to your neighboor, because it should not be related to the stock value or profit of the private company power grid supplier. If the country government wants to reduce the carbon footprint, there is a cost to that. In the macroscale, that means that if you get too high discount on your bill, that should be paid by the government, not your neighboors's bill, that includes another citizen in the other end of the country, that includes even yourself with your taxes. If you have the capability to go off grid (not necessarily that you do), that should also not been seen as hurting the grid (thinking so is like thinking that an empty apartment is hurting the grid). Keep in mind that the *uttermost goal is not to get a cheaper bill, it is to reduce the carbon footprint*. The society as a whole (through taxes and anual budgets) has to pay for that. Of course its not an easy problem to solve, the power grid "machinary" is astonishinly complex and it has been working as it is for a very long long time, and as with any paradigm shift, it is hard to foresee the impacts and side effect. Without clear migration plans from governments (and very likely that implies subsidies here and there), it remains a "everyman for themselves" scheme. Thank you for your thoughts, the entire planet should be debating more about it. Sorry for the long post.
You are very thoughtful about the implications on society as a whole. I aprechiate that, since in the US this notion of "rugged individiualism" is ridiciusly overemphasized.
I'm not buying your case. This winter season my utility company raised rates 60% citing larger costs from suppliers, due to higher nat gas costs, not higher maintenance costs. Next issue is those maintenance costs how are they derived? If I have solar and my excess goes to my neighbors than shouldn't that also reduce some of the costs of the power company maintenance costs. Do you work for the utilities. My bill went from under 100 dollars per month to over 200. Maybe if the utility companies weren't multinational wall st corporate shareholder greed infested monopolized conglomerates your arguments might hold water. Can't wait to see your next article on why we should. All love cable providers
Fun aside: I'm a long haul trucker and there have been some super cool moves towards electrification of idle systems over the past few years. When I started driving in 2016 most trucks companies assigned me were designed either to idle the engine all night or run a diesel generator (APU) to keep the sleeping driver comfy. Not ideal from an emissions and noise pollution standpoint. There were some truckstops with systems that fit in the window with power, cable, internet, and pumped in HVAC from an overhead gantry, but it was awkward and most drivers didn't bother with it. Few companies would reimburse the cost of the window adapters or the nightly cost for the parking spot. In addition, the cost per night was usually more expensive than the amount of fuel you'd burn in an APU, which your employer will happily pay for. Fast forward to today, my current truck has extra batteries in a compartment between the frame rails at the back of the cab, solar panels on the roof, and an electric AC with an efficient little diesel burning heater. If sleeping during the day, you can turn the key off and the solar panel can run the fridge, A/C, and a few mobile device chargers without issue and still leave the batteries enough charge to go hours after sunset. Sleep at night and you can have the truck on a standby mode where it will pop the engine on for 30 to 60 minutes at a time to recharge the batteries if you manage to deplete them or if the sleeper HVAC isn't able to keep the living quarters at a comfy temperature. On really cold nights it uses a little more diesel fuel than an APU would have, but the rest of the year it rarely has to burn any extra fuel at all, especially if you get into a "sleep during the day drive at night" cadence! The electric AC also means that you can just plug the truck into a regular NEMA 5-15 socket and happily run the thing all night if you can park close enough to a power outlet, though truckstops with outlets specifically for that purpose often try to charge silly prices for the electricity that make it not worth plugging in.
I’m glad to hear this. I drive an EV and some of the charging locations are a truck stops. I’ve been to some truck stops, especially in winter, where the smell of diesel is so thick that it becomes almost nauseating. Long-haul trucks are massive, so there is no reason why they couldn’t add some solar and battery storage to them specifically for overnight usage. Glad to hear that they’re starting to do this.
@@ouch1011 It will take the better part of a decade for this stuff to get much widespread use, sadly, and even then folks that buy trucks second hand rarely bother to learn how to use or maintain idle-reduction tech, so they might not last through more than the first and second owners of the truck. I'm hopeful they will be easier to keep working than the diesel generators, since the battery systems are OEM where the generators usually were not, but it depends on how often parts other than the relatively cheap batteries and filters need to be replaced.
Won’t that added weight reduce the overall load capacity you can haul? Batteries are heavy, so if you have to haul around a bunch of them, it would really cut into your hauling capacity. Sound like truck stops really just need to have “plug ins” like campgrounds have for campers. The truckers would obviously need to reconfigure the truck a bit, but seems like a better systen
@@nathan1sixteen The batteries are lighter than the diesel generators they replace and are eligible for the same waivers for the additional weight. It really doesn't take many batteries to cover a single driver's electricity needs for an 8 to 12 hour break. Most semis have 4 lead-acid batteries. Mine has 8.
I Would love to be the Sleep during the day drive at night kind of truck driver because I always do my best work at night but then again I've never operated a motor vehicle in my entire 38 year lifespan so there's that. I just work in IT for healthcare as a front line tech support person for hospitals over night from my house so I don't have to go anywhere and I just stay up all night pounding emails and calls from Doctors and nurses and then sleep all day.
Oh man, this is so good. So many tech centered channels are just hyper fixated on the technical solutions to problems that they don't account for what is usually the actual impedance to progress: politics, liability & economics. I appreciate your nuanced explanation so much here, I hadn't really considered those issues wrt solar, ownership, liability & overall grid stability.
Yes. I get very disappointed with the channels that just flat out ignore - or even discount and dismiss - not just the nuts and bolts of the things, but the reality of human beings - renters, pedestrians, and anyone who is not making six figures - who are not going to be able to access these things and may be actively injured by them.
@@elizabethpemberton8445 Why would you need to "make six figures" to be able to benefit from rooftop solar? Multiple colleagues of mine just got solar installed on their houses for $0 down, and no loan. They're leasing the panels from the solar provider, who have effectively become their power company. My colleagues pay *them*, now, instead of SoCal Edison.
@@coredumperror Yes, rooftop solar is accessible for many homeowners who make less than six figures. And there are various programs with subsidies, etc., for many power-related adaptations for homeowners. However, speaking to valgov3001’s point, many of the technical solutions proposed for many things and celebrated by tech channels, not specifically limited to rooftop solar, but self-driving cars on a magic grid, or replacing gas stoves, or improved HVAC and installation-based solutions for energy and resource conservation, for example, are not available to a large number of people. I am a renter and my income is low five figures. I can’t even change out my old gas range, much less install a car charger or rooftop solar. So many channels act as if people like me - and I am quite privileged compared to a lot of people - just don’t exist, and that homeowners are all we need to consider. To even get the mention of “of course renters can’t do this” is surprisingly rare. Maybe this is not such a big deal for rooftop solar specifically, but when you get used to thinking of homeowners with decent incomes as the norm, and the lowest level you need to consider in all sorts of public policy, people below that level can suffer in many ways.
Personally, I think there's far more potential in parking lot solar than rooftop solar. Parking lots are basically economic dead weight, so adding renewable energy production to them would be amazing from a land-use standpoint. They're also already either owned by large commercial entities, or the government, so they fit into the existing model for energy development. Plus, shade for your car and some reduction in the heat island effect.
We have solar panels above half of the parking lot at the local Walmart, it keeps things shady and helps to offset the enormous amount of energy said commercial infrastructure consumes. IMO, not just parking lots, but the rooftops of these large commercial buildings should also have panels all over the place, there's so much surface area that just absorbs the sun's heat and light for nothing, let's make use of it!
parking lot solar does make a lot of sense as things stand, but some part of me hates all attempts trying to eek utility out of the big box + parking lot hellscape when moving away from it will always be better for whatever context, in this case energy use, climate impact, and general economics.
There is also a benefit in winter months, even when the panels are covered by snow and not producing at the moment. By reducing snow and ice build up on cars parked during freezing precipitation, you reduce the amount of idle time folks are sitting there using the defroster instead of a windshield scraper. Also reduces plowing requirements - you still have to plow the lanes, but not the spaces. The trick (as with *all* massive solar solutions in high traffic areas) is to pay attention to sun position and potential reflections and glare issues (particularly.on adjacent roadways). But that's something that can be readily calculated these days with civil engineering tools that can set up a 3D model of the proposed job and do some ray analysis.
That is heading in the direction of the "solar roads" scam, which has not proven to be feasible. There are good reasons parking lots are open, cost being the first. Rather than install parking lot solar, ten years down the line you will have a parking fee added on to your purchases.
@@geodkyt IMO solar panels would cause snow melt and cause water drainage and de-icing problems for the parking lot. All these casual ideas by commenters are not of much value without a study and cost evaluations by engineers. This is what they do, and they have mostly considered and dismissed all these genius you tube fans "new" ideas.
Here in Sweden we have a grid fee, determined by your main breaker size on top of the metered electricity cost, that should finance the grid upkeep. This way, everyone pays in proportion of how much they could strain grid. This of course also incentivizes people to keep their consumption even throughout the day. It is often complained about, but I do not know of a better way to organize this complex issue more transparently.
Agree! The complaints in the video seems to be a solved problem in Sweden. As long as you separate grid cost is from energy cost both can vary independently, and each will have their respective costs covered. During 2020 energy cost was really low, much lover than the cost of having each kWh transported to your home. That's fine, if there's an excess of energy it will get cheap and there's. During 2022 energy got really expensive, but the cost of transporting it stayed the same*, and the bill from your grid operator and your energy trader (they are two different things!) reflected that. There is no inherent thing that makes the cost of energy connected to the cost of transporting energy. There is also no natural law that the cost of transporting energy should always be lower than the cost of the energy. * a fraction the cost went up, namely the part that covers grid losses.
@@davidh6420 This is already done with water/sewer service where I live. You pay a fixed rate every month to have access to municipal water and sewer, then you have a separate charge for your consumption. Pretty straight forward.
We have pretty much the same solution in Norway, and with the smart meters (AMS) the consumer can watch both historical and real-time electricity consumption hour by hour. However, in 2022 there were some changes to incentivize electricity consumers to even out their consumption throughout the day (24 hours) as much as possible with lower net rent per kWh during the night (22:00 - 06:00) and the fixed fee for a month is set by max kWh used in one single hour during that month. The latter part has been up to debate because and I agree that the consumption within one single hour determines what the fixed amount will be for the whole month seems illogical. Might be a result of a compromise between political parties, the government, and the grid operators/owners. However, the debate has been overshadowed by the power prices in Norway right now, which is ridiculous, but that is another discussion. All in all I think the grid in Norway is operated in a pretty good way. It's not cheap to maintain an electrical grid in a long, rugged and sparsely populated country like Norway. PS: The changes that were made in 2022 was planned long before the power prices increased so enormously.
Indeed, seems like more or less a solved problem in Belgium too (we now have pretty much all factors on our electricity bill: grid maintenance, social measures, peak electricity consumption, total electricity consumption, difference between feeding into the grid and getting electricity from the grid,...), but it's taken like 20 years to get to this point. And we have it easier in Europe as most people here agree that social measures are a good thing 😅
Always good to reiterate that context matters! In South Africa here, our power is currently on rolling blackouts, i.e. we have power for about 75% of a given day. Our solar installations are therefore all hybrid with large battery storage (enough to survive at least 4.5h outage), so less of a concern here.
The efficiency of well-placed panels on a residential rooftop compared to panels on a giant farm that are better aimed (statically, or dynamically) comes out to only about 30%. I feel that is more than made up for by the benefit of having the panels on wasted space, rather than land used for a solar farm only. Also distribution costs can be much higher to get power from an out of town solar farm, than to get it from my roof to my hvac ststem in my house.
One solution I don't see enough of, is using actual wasted space instead of solar farming in a dedicated area: commercial rooftops (like atop a Walmart, mall, or other large commercial building) and parking lots. Look at the size of say, a Costco or Walmart parking lot, now cover the whole thing in solar panels, it's a win-win-win for everyone. The business that own the lots have an offset bill for producing energy to give back to the grid, more energy is being provided in a way that doesn't ruin land that could have been used for something else, and the customers and patrons of the lot now have covered parking in a lot that would normally be fully exposed to any and all weather. But that will never get the mass adoption that it needs because when it comes to things pertaining to the environment, the government and big business aren't looking for solutions, they're looking for ways to push the burden onto the regular citizen/consumer.
Installing Solar on rooftops is preferred indeed as 99% of the infra is already there. You already have the grid connection, the mounting structure, a place to mount the inverter and a internet connection. Also at the current price of solar panels and mounting equipment it makes sense considering energy costs (here in europe at least). You're also only feeding what you don't use on-premise into the grid. Here in germany we use bidirectional energy meters which only count the sum of power over time (eg. if you feed 5kW on phase 1 and consume 3kW on phase 2 you net at 2kW feed into the grid eg. your loads are powered by your solar system and the excess makes you additional money)
@@KyleDavis328wait, are you suggesting that the parking lot itself be made of solar panels? good luck with that. engineering the panels to survive vehicle traffic kills all practicality. installation and maintenance would be extremely intensive and require specialized procedures, and a transparent material that's sufficiently resistant to high compressive load would be drastically more expensive. if you're concerned with wasted space to parking lots, the solution comes from asking why more space is allocated than necessary, and what can be done on a political level to encourage more efficient land usage.
oops. I see you're suggesting covering the parking lot, then putting panels on top of the covering. I'd like to ask how you intend to keep the interior of the lot sufficiently lit
@@ZweiSpeedruns I don't think it would be a continuous roof, like a parking garage. More like a carport, where the lanes are still uncovered, and you park your car under the panels. I've seen such a structure that is hooked up to a charger for the car.
As a renter, my household uses a little bit of 'backyard solar', a small group of panels in the backyard combined with a home-made battery bank tied into some smart controls. In the hottest summer months we run AC units on battery+solar through the hottest time of the day and all the way to 'free nights' power pricing, when we switch things to grid power and also top the batteries back up. It is imperfect but it shaves down the killer peak time pricing and also provides a large enough backup to run lights&etc as needed for more than a day when the grid is down.
Thats pretty awesome. I wish building codes would update that require all new panels be of a smart type so you can integrate those kind of diy setups into the home more seamlessly
@@DrLoverLoversolar water heating, as we do in Australia. Convert IR to hot water, not light to electricity to hot water. We just solar panels for power and a couple of solar water pallets to hear a tank of hot water. Normally a cold tank can be heated to hot even in a dull day.
@@dadawoodslife had that in southern California in the 80's on a MCM rancher house 3 1/2 pipe reflectors focussed on a black tube in the middle would rotate to follow the sun arch through the sky never had a lack of HOT water heat was a propane pig tank and rear garden
In the UK, you can have a seperate export meter. So you effectively have consumption and generation as two seperate contracts with your utility. Depending on the tarrif you choose, the prices for both import and export can be variable, meaning energy companies can mange load through realtime pricing. There are also a lot of people (like me) with un-metered generation, which has to be below a certain amount, and that just offsets my usage during the day. We have a bunch of legacy deals in place too, which were deliberately insanely good terms to encourage early adopters. My boss at my old job was paid based on projected generation. His sysyem was un-metered, and if he used power from the panels, he would still be paid for it. He had a box to divert 100% of the excess solar power he generated to his electric water heater.
Similar deal in Australia. If I remember correctly Australia had upfront subsidies to install panels and then had separate consumption and generation rates, with the generation rate being much lower. This seems to help with the problems in the video in that it allows lower income people access, doesn't over-reward selling energy back into the grid at times when the grid really doesn't need it, and incentives sizing your installation such that the majority of the solar energy generated is used to power the house and not sold back to the grid.
US digital electric meters have the same capability. The discussion needs to separate the technology of rooftop solar, which is great, vs the rate structures that certain utilities use today.
It seems like this solution of putting generators on the wholesale rates would also encourage adding energy storage or time shifting energy usage to higher demand times
I must agree with your comment and the responses - it feels like Alec is getting his knickers in a twist about a specific application of solar incentives in one country whereas - as I understand it (I don't have solar) - in most of the world these issues don't exist / have been mitigated by "sensible" policies. It's like a globally valid technology is being rejected purely because of a local administrative cock-up.
I completely agree that the entire country needs to ban together to strengthen the electrical grid, instead of relying on individuals to generate their own power. The problem (as you point out) is that the authorities aren't taking responsibility, and instead consumers are hearing that it's their fault for not being "green."
That's always been the issue in America (and probably other places, but especially the US), the burden of saving the planet is pushed onto the ordinary citizen instead of being carried by the companies and governments that are the real causes of these issues. Citizens aren't the reason why we consume so much non-green energy, it's because that's what the energy producers are incentivized to use, be it through external incentives or the flow of the market, it's cheaper to not be green, so they're not going to be green. Then make us the consumer feel bad about it by blaming the planet's issues on plastic straws and grocery bags. (Living in California is hell).
But those points run contrary to each other. If consumers shouldn't bear the cost of going green, why should we pay the monopolies to maintain their status (i.e. not use private solar because it strains the grid)?
@@KyleDavis328 Well in that case its better to just build nuclear power plants which on a mass scale are far better for the environment then millions of Solar panels that require heavy mining, nasty dirty and polluting refining process whole Nuclear power generates steam, that is all just steam. Nuclear waste is very small quantity and can easily be burried deep underground like the new facility they built in Europe in Norway we need one here in the USA but the idiots nimbys complain.
@@KyleDavis328 Very accurate, the same situation with cars. "Buy an electric car to help save the planet." Car infrastructure is terrible for the planet, and greener alternatives exist but aren't used since companies and governments aren't putting money into them(such as for bikes and trains).
In the UK we pay a standing fee for a grid connection , even if we don’t use any electricity or gas. Around £250 a year. also i don’t feel sorry for the energy companies as they are making a disgusting amount of profit.
I think energy storage as a power buffer is more valuable for homes than local energy generation like solar, it's a way to ease peak demand on the grid and also provide emergency power. (I mean both would be cool but having power banks in homes connected to the grid is a lot less complicated than power generation)
Keep in mind the lifespan of battery are a alot shorter than solar panels and it will degrade even without maximum usage, more of a function of time then just charging and discharging cycles.
My local power company sent out a survey about putting batteries in homes for a monthly fee to handle power outages. Wasn't worth it for me to have a $50CAD/month cost to help an approx once a year significant outage but it is interesting to see the planning to get more of this equipment distributed.
Here in Canada in my province the government won't allow batterie storage systems to be installed unless it's in a garage (attached or detached) or a detached structure. Most homes here do not have garages. People have gone to the trouble of installing solar at a battery system only to be told it won't pass inspection. A frustrating lack of communication.
@@dg-hughes i know it would be conspiratorial to suggest but I wonder why the Irvings would want that? In NS we just have to deal with Emera owning NS Power.
As an example of your neighborhood tapped out situation, I'm an electrician. We have a commercial area of a decent sized town, that there's a specific spot that is indeed tapped out, and they want to be provided larger easements by all property owners to upgrade the area, and there's a couple holdouts because of property that's owned by the same group, on both sides of said easement, and a bunch of complicated future plans. We as a group of contractors, worked to implement a system that allows things to run alternatively of each other, to work within our current limitations to the entire row of buildings. We have installed larger services to be prepared for the day the supply gets upgraded. Its a complex situation, but its a fascinating real world example of something for y'all in the comments.
I’m not sure how common this is, but I know labatts brewing in london Ontario Canada has a gas turbine generator(maybe 2) that i believe is there because they use more power than the grid is able to provide in that area. maybe it’s also used for peak shaving/back feeding as a peaker plant if/when needed. I know that during power outages they can still run approx 1/3rd of operations (not sure if that’s the least power hungry 3rd or what) Yeah it’s a 5MW Cogen plant Did some more reading and they manage to use 0 grid power during peak demand summer days. Probably costs a lot to use power on those days anyway. I assume they could sell that power for a lot on those days too. They don’t air condition most of the plant so that save a a lot of power
The problems you describe with inequity caused by transition to solar apply just as well to natural gas and heat pumps. As more homes transition to heat pumps and use less natural gas, the cost of maintaining the gas infrastructure gets borne by the remaining customers, who are likely the ones least able to afford a new heat pump (or the corresponding increase in gas prices). This is a significant problem that will require political will to solve.
I think its implied but I wanna emphasize that the problems outlined are very US specific. In Germany the grid costs are a flat fee you have to pay for the hook up, no matter if you use any energy at all. The grid will also only buy your electricity at market rate which is FAR lower than what you pay, so that whole "you cost them something" is not the case here. Still, Solar is massively worth it here because energy prices are so high, you currently have an installation paid off in less than 5 years from the savings. I think what you need to do in the US is have grid maintenance be paid by taxes. Having more people do Solar and Battery installations would help a lot with resilience of grids and I agree this needs to be a societal perspective, not an individualistic one which is unfortunately the norm in the US.
One point I think you might be missing here for the US case is that the costs of your electricity will not stay as low as they are right now. This is a problem that any nation currently reliying on fossils is going to fave eventually, we here see it just much sooner and it would be good of we were already further ahead, less load on the grid and less reliance on fossils would help us massively right now. So see it more as getting ready for more resilience and less highly centralized production which is more prone to catastrophic failure the more severe weather is going to be. As a global society we need to look more at resilience because the cost of failure in the future are going to eclipse the cost of power we pay right now, so even solutions that are more expensive right now are massively cheaper on a 10y+ outlook. The idea of "we rent your rooftop" makes sense I think but its also useful if the logistics of installation are shared but yes ultimately it woule make sense if the solar panels are owned collectively and we pay less for it by having hardware and labor be sourced on a larger scale.
Fuel prices fell in 2010s as tech found some natural gas to use.. Tech will keep finding more. So it's maybe false to just say "energy will definitely get costlier soon ignore trend last 50 years ....... Europeans maybe should NOT lecture US, even before Ukraine power prices 300% US. Clearly Europe was doing almost everything wrong. I suspect solar in Germany is dumb and thru schemes they hide this so homeowners think solar makes sense, hence the 300%. US is dumb in different spheres just in energy we re smarter. . . Europe is overall similar to US, 80% there drive to work, 60% the same co2 per person, I'm not sure we have any "answer" to energy issues, it's all just fake answers. I d love real answer and then change my mind and applaud... I mean this with fun, we re all idiots not sure anyone is smart...
Same sort of system in the UK. You pay a standing charge per day before you import or export any energy. Didn't use to be the case but every tariff has that charge now. The result being an increase in what low energy users pay compared to the old two rate tariffs where you paid a higher unit price for a set amount of usage and then a lower amount afterward. But was still cheaper than the standing charge and one rate tariffs that are universal today.
The issue in the US when it comes to how we are billed has to do with how pricing is regulated. Private companies are generally allowed to either profit on the transmission of power or the generation of power. In California, my state he’s using as an example, the private utilities make money in transmitting power to us. Which is why it’s 75% of the cost. Other states regulate things differently, have more municipal utility districts/coops or are less corrupt. California is a mix of corrupt and has weird regulations.
@@thetrainhopper8992 But we have the same in Germany? The company that provides the power lines, is a different one than the one generating the power and (mostly) there is even a different company that then sells you the power. Yet, this net-metering problem he talks about does not exist - it's simply illegal (you get a new metering device that cannot do it, it's that simple).
Re: Predatory Solar. I have a personal experience with this. I very nearly got solar panels for my small house- about 700 square feet, so it's not a lot of area to work with, plus there's minor tree coverage. These people are commission salesmen, hoping to push you through fast enough you don't realize what you've actually done. While solar panels "may cost about as much as a car", that's still a pretty big investment. Many homeowners still have a mortage and these installation costs (whether it's the actual cost or just them inflating it is unknown) easily hit 20-30k for me. They want to come to your house, "so they can look", but also so they can talk to you face to face, where it's harder for you to say no. They use language like "you'll own this much of your power" and tell you X person didn't pay anything on their power bill, while quietly saying you'll be getting a power rebate at a different time hoping you won't connect the dots as to why that person didn't pay anything on their bills. And at the end of the day, you stand a good chance of not generating enough power (unless you spring for a battery which easily adds 20k+ to your loan) to STILL be paying a power bill, except now you have a loan tied to you with interest. The loan part is what snapped me out of it, because I was able to stop for a second and realize "woah, getting this loan for another 20 thousand to tie to me has been way too fast and easy, something isn't right." And it's not, because that loan is tied to you, not your house. If your house's increase in value doesn't match the loan you took, you're gonna be in the hook for that extra. Everyone is commission based so they want to rush you through so they can get their couple thousand for being a salesman. Months later I still get these people poking and prodding to see if I'll bite. To top it all off, the "incentive" offered by the govt is a tax break. Let's say I did get that stuff installed, I'd get X amount of money as incentive. When I go to pay my taxes, they'll take that much money off what I owe. Except, If you're like me, living the humble life, that amount is several times what I would owe in a year, so that incentive will spread itself over many tax years until its eventually depleted. Additionally, if I remember correctly, that incentive has wildly depleted each year from its inception and has just about turned off due to the time period it affected. All of this makes it a big risk that only people who are relatively comfortable and likely have paid off their mortage can do without undue risk.
I got to the loan paperwork part of the discussion, said I’d like to review it over the weekend and I’d get back to them Monday. Over a quarter of the total loan amount was their origination fee! I can’t recall the exact numbers, but the solar system was ~$28k for 6 kW installed, and the total loan cost was nearly $38k! They talk all those good numbers about “this is how much the panels cost”, and “here’s our low interest rates”, and “here’s your effective cost per kW” and roll the tax credit into a payment on the loan to further cook the numbers, and they don’t tell you at all about the ~35% loan origination fees. Super, super skeezy
My solar installation was $30k all in, $20k out of pocket after the tax rebate. I have already paid that off and we have only had the system for 3 years. Some people can handle these types of purchases responsibly….
@@andykillsu Of course some people can. Firstly- 'We have paid it off' Thats a nice plurality you have there. For my case, I'm the only person in my household, thus, single income. Secondly, speaking of income, what's yours? Feel free to generalize...I'll tell you, I work in a factory. It's good for the area, but its not enough. For sure, if I didn't have a car payment, I could take on a loan of that size, but I do, plus house, utilities and all the etc.
Yea I got suckered into the loan they offered which turned out to compound daily. But there are ways around that. Personally if you can get a home equity line of credit and use that to cover the install price then not only do you get the tax credit on the install but you can deduct the interest you pay on the line of credit on your taxes. Also if you are handy you may be able to do the install yourself with some friends and just pay an electrician to do the final connection. You already have the quote and panel location from the first company which should give you a shopping list.
I think the solution to this is relatively simple, and it is quite common in Europe - we are billed for the distribution and generation and per/kWh. The cost of distribution (per/kWh) is determined by your address and is regulated, while the generation portion can be whatever, even negative, depending on your contract. If I sell my solar to the grid, I can only get the generation portion credited (and we don't have net-metering at all, mostly). If you are on a time-of-use plan (which you probably would be, if you have solar on your roof), the buyout price at noon is peanuts. This puts an incentive on the home owner to adjust their usage to correspond with their generation, and to maximize self-use as well as add some moderate battery storage to cover the night. This is arguably something we should all be doing - fixed-rate electricity is REALLY bad for renewable adoption...
Funnily, regulation solves this "free market" issue... If my utility tells me they pay x Cents per kWh on the market, there is no reason why I shouldn't be eligible to get the same rate for my production. The grid cost is put on top anyway.
Fixed rate would actually be very good as you could sell your power to the average daily price instead of the instant price. But power companies aren't stupid so they don't let you sell using that.
Here in Spain, you get paid a fixed price per kWh you send back to the grid (usually lower than what you pay if you need power from the grid). Companies compete giving more or less but it's pretty stable. Our bills also have the distribution and maintaince costs as separate items, so even if your energy bill is 0, you are still paying those things
I don't know how it works in Spain, but here in Germany I could just cancel electricity. There are 2 main ways that can go: 1) they actually send someone to cut the connection physically 2) you get billed a "very generous"(basically a fine) amount per kw/h if you still use it 1) is probably the most likely as 2) would be too hard too enforce in most places. But I don't know anyone personally who did this and the only cases I heard of where people who just did not pay for an extended period of time so they got their power cut. But that's hear/say. Like I said, I don't know anyone like that personally. But 1) is definitely officially on the table. That's one way to operate solar without any registration requirements. That's why it's becoming more relevant recently.
Same here in Australia, different rates apply to supply from demand and a fixed connection charge applies. That said excess generation can reduce or eliminate that connection charge, because that is electricity the grid doesn't need to generate and has significantly less transmition cost because of locality of supply.
@@benjaminfranklin329That is the way it should work. On average, if you produce 100kw/h excess than what you actually use, that excess should go toward connection/maintenance cost. Where things get "thorny" is the govt/power co being greedy.
@@benjaminfranklin329 that is my take the "grid" must "buy" the power from somewhere and it is UNLIKELY that enough LOCAL generation (correct rates) would out do the TOTAL demand of the grid and local generation is LESS running through the transformers and sub stations ETC so IF the "energy" rates themselves are fair then there should NOT be a case your neighbours are "paying" your way but I suspect a LOT of American utilities DO NOT separate power from delivery so a NET rate system WOULD "over pay" for power generation on feed back solar
"Here in Spain" yeah it works that way in most of the US, too, Alec just made some big assumptions that are mostly incorrect in this video. The only inequity is the power companies getting massive profits and blaming renewables for price increases
Like your videos. I converted natural gas energy pricing to kWh for electrical heating comparison. Electricity is more expensive however, heatpumps have thermal gain. Turns out above 5C my mini split is less expensive than natural gas heating. In the Pacific Northwest, many winter afternoons are above 5C, which has shifted half of my natural gas heating to electricity. A modest 12,000BTU heatpump is doing half the yearly heating of a 40,000BTU gas furnace. Cheers -Peter
Here(Parts of Australia) it's something like 5c kWh to export and 25c kWh to import. I think it should be closer to 10c export as that matches wholesale power prices, but it still really insetaives you to use the power you generate as much as you can as that saves you the most money, taking as much load off the grid as you can. Seems to work. (And the power companies re-sell the exported power at a HIGHER fee as it's 'green energy' and other people want that.)
And this works good in Australia where your peak demand is probably daytime AC. Or even daytime heating like I saw in temperate areas like Geelong in the winter. But here in western Canada, peak demand is flatter. We still have the duck curve, but demand holds steady over night in the winter when heating demands kick in. Solar doesn't match out use patterns at all. Wind is better, but we had a few days this winter when wind was a net draw on the grid, using more power to de ice blades than was produced. My grid operator barely allows grid tie.
Massachusetts USA here, I have a 5.1kWh system and during the day when we are not home I get $0.21 /kWh for export and I pay $0.23 /kWh when I use the grid. but even on months when i make more than I use I still have a $12 bill as all the customer fees (lines, poles, services) do not count towards my export income. so I still pay my share for the gird but not the actual power i use
At one point the US Government sponsored a competition among universities to design and build the most energy efficient homes. The finalists set up their homes on the Mall in DC and the general public was allowed to tour them. I remember one house with PV cells that stored excess energy in a bank of boat batteries. (That’s when I first heard about batteries having a cycling limit.)
That's why the new Lithium iron phosphate batteries are such a game changer- they have 6000-8000 cycles before dropping to 80% capacity, which means that 20-30y lifetimes for battery banks are now possible.
One novel approach was used by The 8-Bit Guy, who did a video about his solar panel install. His house is still on the grid, but his solar panels aren't - he can switch parts of his house into it when they're active, which means that he can offset costs in a more direct way. It's a great solution for his situation, I kind of wish I could do it for my house because I'm also in a hot climate that isn't prepared for a deep freeze of that type. But it's a lot of engineering effort, and I don't think it would scale well as a societal solution.
The problem with that is that you generally don't need power at the time when you're generating it - unless it's for A/C. You only need one, maybe two panels to run your house during the day if you're out at work.
@@robinbennett5994 charging an EV car and charging BATTERIES / WATER TANK EEV blog has swapped into a heatpump water tank and an EV car and is "on grid" but there rates are "bad" and he sets his demand loads to come on during solar max output he has a few vids on it
@@robinbennett5994 : The trick, then, is to have your solar-panel-driven air conditioner turn on a couple hours BEFORE you come home from work. Then it won't have to kick into high gear to cool your house when you get home.
Man, this video really resonated with me. I worked in the solar industry down in Hawai'i, where the duck curve problem was so bad it dubbed the Nessie curve. But you're absolutely right: while those who advocate for solar are well-intentioned, externalizing grid operation costs to people without solar -- who tend to be less well off -- is icky. Disconnecting from the grid is no better either; the grid is a beautiful machine that works best when we work together as a species. One of the main issues is the paradigm utility companies operate under. Utility companies don't operate so that we can have access to electricity, they're a business that needs to sell electricity. But we can absolutely challenge this paradigm; utility co-operatives are already doing some pretty cool stuff. Over on Kaua'i, the KIUC has invested heavily in renewable energy, to the point where pretty much all electricity produced during the daytime is renewable. They've also made some pretty substantial investments in energy storage. Perhaps this model of community ownership can provide an equitable way to aid the transition from fossil fuels
Oh yea we're doing a swimming job of working together as a species, we continually allow people to rot in poverty while showering people who already have too much money with more money and ways to not give their money to anyone.
It is interesting that you mention the problems with individual, private energy production as I feel like a big incentive for the installation of rooftop solar is the growing costs and price hikes caused by private ownership of utilities by companies such as Eversource which in turn causes energy production to be focused on short-term profits over providing a public service.
As much as I hate monopolies, it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in and provide maintenance and operation of the electric grid, since it is a matter of national security.
@@kentslocum except that the grid isn’t owned and operated by the government, it’s run by private companies with local monopolies such as Eversource in New England who’s infamous for overcharging electric bills and utilities since they run for profit and have no competition.
@@fredrickfraser1659 I guess I should have been clearer--I meant that it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in, because the grid is currently a bit of a mess.
@@kentslocum I think the confusion is with how you started "As much as I hate monopolies" wouldn't really apply here, as the monopolies are already here, the government stepping in would be creating a new monopoly, it'd be socializing electricity. It would have made more sense to express it the way I personally feel: As much as I hate socialization, it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in and provide maintenance and operation of the electric grid. And to that, as much as I hate socialization, there are a lot of currently privatized industries that are a lot worse off than if they were socialized. Besides electricity and other energy utilities, waste is something I think would benefit a lot from socialization. I've lived in places where there's a local waste monopoly (specifically WM) as well as places where there's a thriving market of competition in the waste sector (at least half a dozen major players in the town if not more), and they're both awful as a consumer. The local monopolies charge whatever they want and you just have to bend over and take it, and having to navigate a town while 6 or more sets of garbage trucks (before accounting for separated recycling, and any other separated waste that's offered) are all trying to find which bins are theirs to collect on their pickup day is an absolute nightmare. As a staunch proponent of free market capitalism, I very much hate privatized waste management.
@@KyleDavis328 If the US government runs the grid, I wouldn't call it socialized. The US government is itself run as a business. A racket for military spending to improve profits in the military-industrial complex => the value surplus generated by an efficient grid will be diverted to this purpose. After the US government is overthrown and a "social government" is put in its place, your remark applies.
Modern top-of-the-line heat pumps are pretty amazing. Mitsubishi Kazan Extreme series has SCOP of above 5 and they get diminishing returns all the way down to -31F. They're designed for places like Finland and Sweden. At 0F they're still producing tons of net heat.
is that part of the "Mr Slim" mini-split types of unit I am looking at a MITS Mr Slim heat pump with "super heat" because they CAN still heat pump heat at -35C
@@surferdude4487 such places are very few, if that's a possible risk in your non-urban area then you should think about a backup heating source. Also ground loop heat pumps -- ground after two-three meters deep is about the same temperature throughout the year, so no reliance on air temperature
@@niter43 Places where the winter temperatures drop below -40 C are quite common in Canada. I do recall, from about 20 years ago, that a friend of mine was installing heat pumps and they used underground loops. But nobody ever told me about what happens when that small volume in contact with that loop also freezes. I can't see this as a long- term solution unless that loop is in contact with the ground water. Then you have to deal with what happens if the stuff in that loop ever leaks into the ground water. As for back-up heat sources? If I have to use a back-up heat source that can keep me warm when it's too cold for a heat pump, then why even bother with the heat pump? I still have to maintain a gas furnace and pay the fees to keep gas hooked up whether I use it or not. I have heard of hibrid systems that heat up the cold side of the system when it is too cold for a heat-pump alone to do the job. This is likely the best solution for extreme cold.
Great discussion. I work for a utility on electric service upgrades and I wanted to add the additional problem that when you make an application for a larger service, it can take a very long time to get permission to upgrade in situations where the utility's secondary circuits or transformer are overdue for an upgrade. I see this happen a lot in neighborhoods that are just the right age for folks who are thinking of replacing their appliances and electrifying. You will wait months for the utility to make the upgrades even if the overload has nothing to do with your added load. You didn't want a video about the electric grid, but this is one situation where people's personal decisions to electrify and the utility's decisions to defer upgrades can butt into each other.
I appreciate your desire to Do The Right Thing on cooperatively taking care of our shared asset: the grid. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, which has demonstrated that the powers-that-be don't have the same values you and I do: their criminal neglect of the grid has lead to multiple deaths - it's beyond ridiculous that people would freeze to death in this country because the power grid is down. Everyone I know who has any resources at all owns one or more gas (or natural gas) powered generators, in self defense for the horrible state of the grid here. And I'm not out in the sticks somewhere: I'm in the middle of the largest urban area in the state, but still experience at least 1 multi-day outage every year. In this environment, having rooftop solar and personal battery backup is the only sane response, unless and until we can change the people in charge.
After watching probably a hundred of your videos, I want to make a big compliment for choosing interesting topics (recent and historical ones), for the sympathetic presentation style and your type of humor. Keep it up! Of course, being an European engineer I do not share your views on every detail, but this doesn’t matter at all.👍🏻
In Sweden, we have a system where you pay separately for your grid access and energy usage. I am pretty sure that if you add solar panels to your rough you become a so-called "micro producer" which means you have flexible rates, and then you pay/get paid the total usage * current cost. This way you are incentivised to add storage and to use your own stored energy when the prices go up.
Coming here to say the exact same thing. In Belgium we are evolving to a electricity price system, where you pay more for the electricity you get from the grid, then what you get for injecting into the grid. That way, you pay for using the grid. Also peak usage will be part of the equation and spot prices per 15 minutes will be thrown into the mix. All to give incentives to people who stabilise the grid and discourage others who put high stress on it.
I'm not sure if it's the same in Sweden as in Finland. In Finland there are three charges for domestic grid power: fixed monthly fee (few euros), energy usage (either spot price or contracted price), and fixed per kWh transfer price. So paying for energy production and transfer are split. If you have rooftop solar I believe the standard contract is you are paid at the current spot price for production, but it's not the same as net metering because you are not also paid the transfer/grid infrastructure price.
@@andys844 Yes correct. Recently installed panels. My EXCESS production will go to the grid and I get paid the hourly spot price, Elec.company takes a very small marginal fee per KWh. Transfer price is not added or reduced from that. If the Spot electricity price is HIGH (and for example decreases a lot for the next night), it tends to be smarter move to cut my own use and sell it to grid for "better price". If the spot price is low, it is wise trying to use Your own production for example in water heating, so you basically "save" the transfer fee using your own electricity. No, it will not pay for itself fast. ...and as it seems, there will be so much new energy production here, that overall average yearly electricity price will be pretty low. -> even slower payback.
I like the idea on principle of separating grid access from energy usage. However, once scenario that does need to be thought through if you do it is EV charging providers (and I'm referring to public fast chargers here, not slow home chargers). The consume huge quantities of power when a car is charging, but nothing when a car isn't. If they have to pay very high grid access fees for their big connection, this makes it impossible for a charger that is only used a few times per day to turn a profit. This is a big problem because the chargers that only get used a few times a day tend to occur in rural areas, far from any other chargers, and it would be very bad for the EV community for these chargers to go bankrupt, even if they aren't used all that often. One solution that charging companies are starting to do for this type of situation is install stationary batteries at the charging site. This way, they can slowly charge the batteries from the grid using a relatively slow and cheap grid connection and fast-charge the cars from the batteries at a speed that is not limited by the grid connection. The catch, of course (besides the cost of the batteries) is that if the charger becomes too popular for its own good, the batteries will quickly become depleted, leaving the rest of the customers stuck charging at the rate of the slow grid connection.
10:36 - this point about "buying your way out of grid costs" is not actually true in a lot of cases. You underestimate the cost to install solar and batteries and overestimate the savings.
The duck curve is why your friend's 'time of use plan' exists. I never thought of solar causing grid maintenance issues. This is a really interesting idea that I'll have to think about more. BTW my bill cannot go below $13 because of grid cost and anything I generate beyond my usage on a yearly basis gets donated to the low income fund to keep power bills low/non existent for people who cannot afford to pay their bills (especially during winter months)
Yeah I didn't really get that bit of criticism. Having solar on your roof is better than not, but if the utility company can disincentivize you from using that energy when demand is high and instead sell it to them it is better for the grid from an emissions perspective.
I think that what Alec is seeing is that they're incentivizing based on current production trends (fairly consistent production, with lower use overnight), while the solar produces a different curve. With more solar, it makes sense to incentivize using electricity in the middle of the day, because that's where it produces the most. Edit: Incentivizing based on current production likely makes the most sense, but Alec may be overlooking the fact that current production is largely unaffected by solar production.
In the Netherlands, the current situation is called "salderen" (which can be translated as one-for-one): your energy price is determined per year and you can subtract the kWh that you feed back to the network from your usage. That is no longer possible after 2025 as people without solar panels subsidize people with solar panels. We're starting to move towards energy pricing by time of use, usually per 15 minutes. That means that if you generate with solar during a sunny day, your revenue will be low, while when you use during the peak hour, your price will be high. Generally this will not offer an advantage or disadvantage for people who don't generate, but if you're smart about your timing, you can make significant savings.
@@IIVQ I also have a time of use plan available as an option. It's a good option for night shift workers who tend to be at work during peak time, but difficult to make work for most families.
My son lives near LA. He had his roof replaced due to its age. But, he went one step further and had the shingles replaced with those made by Tesla. The shingles convert sunlight into power. That power then feeds two Tesla wall batteries during the day. The batteries then charge his two electric cars (Chevy Bolt and a Tesla Model S). So, the way I see it, both of his cars literally run on sunlight. Also, when his neighborhood goes dark due to a power failure, his home continues running normally as if the power failure never happened.
The drawback is that a tesla solar roof is crazy expensive, the batteries are fairly expensive as well. It will take him 30+ years to make up the cost, however the roof and batteries will need to be replaced in 20ish years, so he will always be in the hole economically.
I live in a newer house in a subdivision. Over the last few years, we’ve been having lots and lots of fly by night solar companies wanting to install rooftop solar. They go door to door selling it which is the worst. I reluctantly talked to a couple of them, and they basically refused to disclose the cost of them. They would go on and on about building equity in my house, and I only owe them what I save through solar. But I never could get a straight answer on cost. For the last company that came by, I pretended to be super interested in it just because I wanted to see how exactly this worked. After like five separate meetings and they we wanting me to sign the contract did I finally discover what I was getting. Basically it was a fourteen year loan at 8% interest AND they were greatly overcharging on the actual cost of parts and labor. The whole thing just felt like a scam. Oh, and every time I would mention that I needed to run it by my wife, the guy would be like, “aren’t you the man of the house? Don’t you make all the decisions?” I feel like all of these places were scams.
All of the door to door solar sellers are scams. Frankly all of the door to door anythings are scams (or at least bad deals). Particularly the solar salesmen are trying to get an easy sale because of how ludicrously high energy costs are and how good incentives can be. I know that around here, even with 8% and 14 years, solar would *still* easily pay off compared to the bonkers electricity rates we pay. If you're actually interested in solar, though, find your own installer instead of letting one come to your door.
@@UnreasonableSteve I don't remember how I found the solar contractor I used, but the prices for panels and labor were about what I expected from what I read, and I did not finance it. I used a home equity line of credit, which is about 4% interest rate. If I did all the details myself, I might have found a cheaper electrician. But, that was a small part of the total for a ten kilowatt system.
A grid-tied installation that also has storage could use an ATS (automatic transfer switch). They are normally used in something like a data center to ensure that in a grid power outage, it automatically fires up the onsite generators. By replacing the generator with batteries, it could possibly solve the issue of grid feed back to keep workers safe.
The existing battery systems include transfer switches. There are also grid tied solar systems that are smart enough to disconnect themselves from the grid and keep the panels active until power from the grid is restored, at which point they reconnect to the grid. I know Enphase has a system that accomplishes this without a battery system.
Yes that's correct as I understand it. If you have storage you can do this and run off grid in an outage. If you don't have storage you don't have anywhere to dump excess power so you need to shut the system down.
@@mrgilbe1 That can be avoided if the inverter is smart enough: solar panel output can be curtailed in milliseconds. If the inverter can measure the real-time energy use of the house, it can match that by briefly turning off the solar panels for a fraction of the AC waveform. But the vast majority of inverters don't have this capability, which is a shame. In fact, after having Tesla Powerwalls installed at my house, I found that although the system can run off-grid, it's far from ideal. When off-grid, if the battery is full and the solar panels over-produce, the battery inverter shifts the frequency out-of-spec, causing the solar inverters to shut down, running the loads entirely from battery. Once the battery level drops below 80%, the frequency is restored, and the solar inverters (eventually) turn back on again to charge the battery. This wastes 20+% of the battery capacity, and reduces peak power capacity.
I got solar in my house in Australia a few years ago. It's been awesome but the feed in tarrif is so bad now. It was very easy to get it here but my house was only built like 10 years ago. It was a perfect 32°c autumn day today and I generated 47.5 kWh with an 8 .58 kW array.
As more people are doing something, it will become less economically beneficial. That's just basic supply and demand. If your tariff varies through the day, maybe you should do the math on adding storage to your system.
In my subdivision, all houses had 100A underground service, but they pulled 200A Aluminum cables to all houses, so it was just the wires from the meter to the panel which had to be upgraded, which was 4' in my case. I would not be surprised if this was done in more places with underground service.
I believe underground did NOT really become a thing till the 80's and I assume they would pre run for 200A much like they pull extra fibre OR network when they are running them (look up "dark fibre" buried fibre cables un assigned and leasable)
I think most of your concerns about the grid can be solved by adjusting the incentives. In most countries in Europe that Ive heard of it is usually set up like this: - The costs for the grid and the electricity are separated on your bill, and the grid costs are mostly fixed and not based on usage. - If you have solar, it doesn't use net metering in the sense that the counter is running backwards, but instead uses two separate counters. Any electricity that you supply to the grid you get paid for by a much lower rate than the one you pay for consumed energy. This automatically incentivizes you to use most of your solar energy yourself at the time it is produced (as this reduces the amount you pay full price for). This reduces the problems with the evening spike right after solar stops, as households with solar might be more inclined to run their dryers or charge their cars during the day when solar is active. It can also be an incentive to invest in a battery system as this allows you to live mostly independent from the grid, using your own energy as much as possible, while still being connected and paying for the grid. - I think there were some ideas by grid providers to allow people to link their private batteries up to the grid and set a percentage that the grid provider is allowed to draw from it during short peak times, but i cant find the sources on that anymore.
Yeah I think that’s how it works in the UK too (though I don’t have solar panels). The government also used to offer grants to help with the cost of the installation. I don’t really understand what he’s describing as the issue, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue in how it runs as you’ve described.
In general this seems like a more sensible approach than the US system but there's one thing that confuses me. To me, a fixed fee for connecting to the grid doesn't make sense... because the more electricity you use, the costlier the infrastructure is. Now of course if just one person uses more power, we're mostly talking about the wiring from the house to the street. But comparing, say, a neighborhood of single-family houses to a neighborhood of apartment buildings, not only the infrastructure from the building to the street, but also upstream infrastructure will have to be able to handle more power and thus more costly.
@@moi01887 What you're missing is that houses all have approximately the same size connection. You will pay a lot more for an industrial sized grid connection. Big consumers (like factories) can save a lot of money if they can smooth out their demand and limit themselves to a smaller connection. Also, it makes no difference to the network operator if you regularly use all of your 100amp connection or not. What they care about is that you *could* use it, and so they have to provide for it.
@@moi01887 The thing is that the cots of the grid is not tied to the amount of electricity you use, it's tied to having reliability (24x7 service) and demand response (the ability to demand up to 200A of power, at no notice). Whether you use your circuit at 25% load or 40% load makes zero impact on the cost of that infrastructure. As such, the cost of connection should be scaled to the amount of power you *can* demand. Generation scales with usage, but distribution largely doesn't. In the commercial space, they pay a demand charge proportional to the highest amount of current they demand over a month, but that would be hard to parse in residential, and would cause surprise bills, so it's not done. Note that in most places, your water bill is already billed this way (large fixed charge, smaller consumption charges), so it's not unheard of. It can be somewhat regressive, but we can solve that via other existing programs that target low-income households.
@@robinbennett5994 exactly. Those cost increases which are flat are covered in the flat cost, and those which are more directly dependent on usage, are instead covered in your per unit fee.
wow this video is absolutely excellent - I appreciate the very nuanced look at how the dynamics of rooftop solar play out, and I'll definitely find myself thinking about that. Right now we're leaning toward rooftop solar plus an electric car with a V2H setup to use as a storage battery, but I might have to look into it a bit more closely first…
Unless you think spending all that money will be offset by just feeling good - for ten years - forget about that. Any electricity you produce by solar will mix into the grid, and you will be charging your EV burning natural gas at 30-40% efficiency from a remote power plant, as was excellently pointed out in this video.
Here in Denmark we got rid of the metering setup for solar panels. Instead some electricity providers will offer to buy your over production at the market rate. This seems to work pretty well, you earn a bit if money off the power you cant use, but you are still incentivized to use as much of your production as possible because you have to pay tax on top of the market rate for grid power.
Still - getting a battery makes more sense than selling it back, imo. Even if you don't have solar, a battery could pay for it self, just by using the flexrate for power and charging battery and using grid at night and when its super cheap, and using batery when its expensive.
I may have some of the details wrong, or the salesman was outright lying, but the information I got was that in my state, if you got solar panels you could either feed back to the grid for credit off of your billing (but never make profit) OR you could have a home battery storage system, but then your solar was not permitted to feed to the grid.
@@MonkeyJedi99 it WOLD NOT feed the grid with batteries as YOU ARE CHARGING your batteries to discharge them once the sun sets they would also have issues if your solar AND battery dumped INTO the grid Manitoba all but does NOT ALLOW batteries for that reason / and building codes
@@Krydolph that system still incentivises batteries since using your own power would be worth more. Then “overspill” on the batteries can still be sold. This also allows for people to get at least some money off their bills from solar, before they get batteries installed later
@@kaitlyn__L Exactly right, i have a battery setup, but during the spring and summer months it very quickly gets fully charged and then my remaining overproduction goes onto the grid.
One thing that helps is that there are less demand on high voltage long distance wires if solar panels are providing local energy, so its not quite as bad as 75% maintenance costs going unpaid. I also think we are a long way from there being enough solar panels that maintenance isnt being paid (the 25% that covers cost of generation also covers the cost of paying for private solar generation)
Glad to finally see someone talk about the Magic Kingdom issues of the current incentive structure for rooftop solar. 75% of the power bill being non-generation costs makes me wonder what's going on with grid construction and maintenance that makes it such a big piece of the bill? Like, if we've got the generation capacity part down well enough that it's only 1/4th of what people pay for the power, what are the big chunks costing so much for the distribution part that can be tackled to lower that majority cost?
First time I've heard an argument against rooftop solar that stopped me to think if it is really a great thing. That's good! I think a video on 'Rooftop Solar Done Right' could be very interesting.
Look at Project Solar. Most solar companies are paying a commission to salespeople that conveniently amounts to the tax rebate rate, so that incentive you're getting is actually just covering the cost of the salesperson you're dealing with. Rooftop solar should run at $1.85 or so a Watt. Instead, places are charging closer to $6/Watt because no one knows how much solar *should* cost and the tax incentives and finance programs obscure the true cost enough that people aren't paying attention to where all the money goes. Add in that solar finance companies are charging double-digit origination fees compared to the typical mortgage at 1 point origination and it's easy to see where all the actual cost is going. Project solar doesn't have salespeople and they also have a DIY option so you can get real savings into what the system should actually cost. With what Alec mentioned about the issues of damage to a roof from the solar install is a very very common issue. The pay structure for the crew incentivizes them to slap it on as fast as possible and move on, with no penalty for damage they cause. My recommendation would be to find a roofing company who's willing to assist in at least installing the mounting brackets for you since they know how to handle making sure it doesn't leak, and then either they or you install the actual panels on the brackets. Then all you need to do is hire an electrician at normal rates to connect it to your panel.
I was just thinking that local community solar projects would be a cool idea and consolidate the cost/liability, if it only ever got popular of course. We'll see how it goes though
The concept of "Cost Shifting" is a myth perpetuated by the power companies. Every KWH I push to the grid goes directly to my next-door neighbors and is one less that has to be pushed from the plant over the grid. That is less strain on the grid and has near zero loss, whereas there is about a 5% transmission loss (about $6 billion annually in the US) from the plant to local production, which makes up for the "loss" of my share of grid upkeep fees. It's a complicated subject, and the big producers don't like competition.
@@ericapelz260 That's only true when 10% or less people have solar. When it's 50%, strange things happen to frequency regulation, and power has to leave your transformer to find a place in a power deficit. On top of that, unless you are not grid tied, how do you pay for your part of the grid when you use it. That topic is more complicated when the grid and generation are owned by different companies.
Agreed that a societal approach is required - and I say that as a rooftop solar customer. (Who also pays PG&E a WHOLE LOT of money every year - partly because I still have gas everything, partly because there's quite a bit of grid maintenance charge built in to what we're paying). The utilities are WAY too privatized - and are incentivized to skimp on the maintenance that keeps their piece of the grid from burning down large swathes of the West every year. Thanks for shining your light onto these issues; I find I agree with about 95% of everything you say - which is pretty remarkable to me ;)
Following up to myself, I also really like how much the residential rooftop solar incentives have jump-started technology research and the productization of previous research; I do think it's about time to sunset many of the incentives, and also be smarter about what behavior we incentivize...
Our government literally subsidises a solid chunk of solar panels here in Australia. In Western Australia where I live both our retailer and grid operator are state owned. Honestly? I wouldn't have it any other way.
Thank you for this video! I was really into the idea of off-gridding a while ago, mostly because I was really interested in self-sufficiency for economic reasons, but also because I saw it as a way to be more eco-friendly when the grid is powered by fossil fuels. But as I read more about e-waste and resource limitations on the ability to have everything run on renewable energy at our current energy consumption levels, I realized that off-gridding contributes to the problem because it takes you out of an economy of scale. I haven't found many people talking about that, or anyone at all approaching it from an economic justice angle. It's reassuring to see someone who holds similar values talking about this, even if all that can be said right now on this particular topic boils down to "it's complicated and there isn't a good solution".
Those loans on the solar installation are very complicated, and I’d also recommend caution. I think it was a good thing for me, because a replacement roof, new panel, and an upgraded grid connection was all part of the installation. I do also agree about your point that a battery pack makes it all work correctly 😅 so, going all the way is still terrifyingly expensive
Yea those loans are pretty much bigger/longer versions of what the used car dealers used. Mine's interest compounded daily and thankfully after I got my tax return I was able to transfer the remaining balance to a home equity line of credit that wasn't big enough for the full install price. a HELOC is a good option for this sort of install cuz not only do you get the tax credit from the install but you get to claim the interest on your taxes.
@@The_Lone_Aesir Very good point. Mine is tied in with my utility bills, and manageable for now. But, the amortization schedule is very aggressive, with bills already going up. I might have to use some of the HELOC for amortization going forward. Thanks for sharing
@@The_Lone_Aesir My system was installed 4 years ago, but we only bought the house last year. The unfortunate part is that it is a Power Purchase Agreement. At no point will we ever own the system because the contract -- which we never signed -- stipulates that 1) we are purchasing the solar that the panels produce at a reasonable rate of $.21/kwh, 2) We can purchase the system at the 6 year mark for the greater of the assessed value OR the total of the balance of the contract. This means that at year 6 my balance is in the range of $20k Talk about used car dealer contract.
@@Kraus- If you are referring to the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) it is a 20 year agreement starting at $.19/kWh with an annual escalation of 2.9%. By year 20 I estimate we will be paying $.33/kWh and the estimated total cost of all power generated/purchased will be about $30k. My lowest Southern California Edison Time of Use rate is currently $.25/kWh. When NEM3.0 kicks in I'll be getting paid $.19/kWh for exporting. To install a recommended battery listed on the SCE site will cost $10,000. I can DIY an EG4 battery system for $1500 plus the cost of an electrician. At the end of the term we must choose to renew, to pay the assessed value of the system, or to remove the panels.
It might be worth mentioning, having a second power source can be a life saver, literally. In the northeast, I've been through several instances where the gas stove saved our lives by heating the house when power is lost. Solar panels may mitigate this if the sun shines, but it could easily be several days during a storm when the sun doesn't appear. So when electric is lost, everyone should have some kind of backup.
That would be one big battery to cover several days. It would cost a huge amount and would suit idle most days. Better bet would be a generator. Not that environmental but you may only use it once every 5 years or less
Oh, and don't forget about snow and ice blocking the solar panels! Can you imagine having to shovel the roof? Currently, in cold climates, they count on a snow-covered roof to provide insulation.
From a country like australia that has clear peak and off-peak cost structures; a net metering arrangement sounds like the utilities get completely shafted in the US. We have smart meters that measure exports and tarriff them accordingly based upon agreed rates, eg, 30c per k/w with Ausgrid (Sydney/central coast) during peak periods (2-8pm)
Grid issues are the biggest impedance for me for rooftop PV. Currently, in my location in Australia, there are heaps of predatory installers, it's actually really hard to read the contracts but it appears to be a loan structure that will probably be financially harmful to the "customer". They have almost completely removed the net metering options that came up originally. The generation:maintenance cost of an electricity bill now makes so much sense.
I read the small print on my PV loans here in the US. It was predatory. It consisted of two 0% loans. A 12 month lump sum loan (for the portion that was expected as a federal solar incentive tax rebate), and a 5 year loan for the remaining. If the customer paid on time? 0% interest. Pay late? 20% retroactive penalty. I'm making sure I pay ahead of time.
predatory installers if you go with any large marketing company (hello facebook ads showing a cricketer). the private electrical contractor doing residential solar is rare, the good ones end up doing commercial rooftop PV systems.
Interesting hearing this from an American perspective. So you pay for electricity only per kWh? Here in the Netherlands, there is a split between the electricity network operator and the company 'generating' the electricity. You pay the network operator a fixed price based on the size of the connection to your home/business (number of amps). Then you pay the electricity provider based on the number of kWh you use. Also, this variable part of the bill is heavily taxed (for consumers, not companies) to incentivize lower consumption. For solar panels there is a net-metering scheme here also, but only over the electricity generation part of the bill, not the network operator part. 'Smart'-meters are required here, so that means the meters will account for much much you take from the grid, and how much you deliver back. The price you pay for taking energy from the grid is much higher than giving it back (partly because of the tax). From a financial perspective then, it incentivizes you to use your own power as much as possible.
Like everything else in the US..."it depends." It depends on who your utility is, which state you live in, and what rate plan you are on. Most utilities charge a flat fee monthly for the connection, and then a $/kWh rate that might be flat, might change by season, or might change by Time Of Use. Other plans charge you a tiered rate where total usage is unmetered, but you get billed based on your highest utilization for the billing cycle (for example: you pay the 5-7 kWh rate for the month if your highest peak usage hour during the month required 6.8 kW that hour). In most cases, the rates have a breakdown between production charges, transmission charges, and distribution charges...but in most of the US, the transmission and distribution is handled by the same utility, and occasionally the production too!
22:30 you mention the concern of "well if I'm not incentivised enough, I'll just go off-grid and prices for everyone still on the grid will go up" has a solution -- I don't know if US has the same thing, but here in Australia, if you own (even completely empty) property, if mains water and sewer lines run past your property (even if you don't connect ever) you still have to pay a small fee for the maintenance of the systems. I think that's more closely linked to council rates than to the water companies, but the justification is "this physical land requires X metres of pipes to bypass, and they have a cost" or something like that.
In the case of NEM 3.0, it does incentivize installing storage (AKA batteries) along with your solar. They also want you stay tied to the grid, so you can shift your demand to the batteries when required and/or charge the battery at low-demand times. It helps to flatten the duck curve and if batteries continue to get cheaper may be a great option for making grid-tied rooftop solar viable. It almost certainly makes more sense for the power company to install both solar and batteries, but at least NEM 3.0 moves things in the right direction for individuals.
We have this in Western Australia as standard. In fact no inverters can be sold unless they have NEM3 software on them. Otherwise you get slapped with a massive reduction in export prices. Microinverters and power optimisers also drastically improve the effectiveness of your panels as any cloud cover or debris cover will affect all other panels in the series. Enphase, SMA and Fronius have great inverters that all use this kinda tech. I went with Enphase myself
@@rtmpgt I don't think you are talking about the same thing. NEM 3.0 is the Net Energy Metering, version 3.0 policy that goes into effect in California in April 2023.
@@tjs114 I believe WE ARE talking about the same thing but from different "angles" you are referring to the metering RATES charged VS SOFTWARE must support the NEM3.0 METERING "method" it is a "thing" on Canadian solar for grid tied
In Europe the power generation and distribution are charged separately. Even if you're on a bundled deal from a single company (which is true most of the time due to inertia) they're separate line entries on your power bill (there's actually many entries, some of them flat - per-month, some of them per kWh; lmk if you're curious, I could probably translate mine for you or find an example from an anglophone country); if you switch to a different energy generation provider (which you can do whenever you want, you just sign a contract with them) you get two separate bills from two separate companies, one for distribution and one for generation. I'm not 100% sure how net metering works here, but I'd assume it only discounts the per kWh generation costs (ie. you are just paid for the energy you generate).
yup, you pay energy to someone and the "transport/grid use" to the national grid - which is strategic govt. property. In Italy bills are four pages long, as from this date to this date the kWh costs X+dispatch costs Y and it changed every few days.
@@fabiogalletti8616 in Poland there are actually several regional power distribution companies. I'm not sure if they're all government-owned, but even if they aren't they have special legal obligations and regulations due to their monopoly position and designated vital public utility infrastructure provider status.
When my natural gas furnace broke down last winter, out of a panic, I immediately ordered a replacement natural gas furnace. I knew about heat pump but in the middle of the winter, when there was no heat for my family, there was little room for rational thinking.
We always say, "When you need to replace your heating system, go with a heat pump" but the damn things never quit in the last week of the heating season.
Another inequality it creates is the renting versus owning issue. The only people putting solar on their roofs are the people who own their own homes, which means the people who own are the ones who are going to be able to remove themselves as contributing to the costs of grid maintenance and that puts an even bigger burden on the people who can't afford to buy. Here in Australia it's not as bad as it seems to be in the US however. I have a number of friends with solar and there doesn't seem to be as many issues as you descrive.
as a renter, I really think that landlords should be eager to make these installs, or at least it should be a more common option. They already own the building as a long term investment, after all. Having a grid-tied system could defray tenant bills-which would be a nice amenity that can mean higher rent, or pay directly back to the landlord, and battery systems could offer the same. Having a large set of properties should allow them to realize some cost savings by working with a company for multiple sites as well.
@@skytek7081 considering that most landlord are just about breaking even, where do they get the funds to install heatpump, solar and battery Walls? If they try increasing the rent they are called greedy landlords. someone needs to pay, if this becomes mandatory like pgt is mandating then these landlords will just sell up then tenants have hardly anywhere to rent which then push price up (supply/demands) and the landlord still get called greedy
Could work in certain circumstances (much like apartment complexes offering community grounds, pools, etc.; some apartments use to offer all utilities paid, and solar could play into that). As is, in the distant future when electric cars reach critical mass, several older buildings will need to be retrofitted for car charging. A solar bank exclusively for this is probably one of the cheapest means to do this (and thus appealing to landlords).
Give landlords incentive to do so. We own our house but it was a prior renter [as if the _"Good luck ever getting all your deposit back"_ white tile floors, white walls and ceilings were not enough of a tell]; it came with solar that was installed in 2015; five and a half years before it was put on the market.
Thank you for the discussion on rooftop solar. I've long felt that there was a piece of the puzzle that I didn't grock and this was it. So much better to have the full scope of the issue so to understand how to move forward
I'm glad you touched on this. I saw your original video and felt it gave rooftop solar more credit than should be due. Solar is great, but at this point it's a zero-sum game. As soon as you put solar on your roof, you're competing with the energy generation industry. The industry is deploying renewables rapidly, and will *always* generate far cheaper than you can, due to efficiencies gained at scale. This means the payout forecast you calculate is outdated by the time you finish installing. Couple that with predatory installer pricing, shifting legislative landscape, and lackluster financing, and you'll find that most people who are installing solar now and over the past few years may never actually break even. The time value of their dollars would have been better spent elsewhere. The best solution to the issues you've mentioned that I've witnessed for private solar ownership is the co-op model. It's big in western Colorado, and it works. The solar is grid tied, done at scales large enough that efficiencies are gained, but are privately owned, which allows your dollar to fairly compete with producers. I think renewables done right can be the great equalizer, and in my opinion, done right is citizen owned renewable (wind+solar) farms (*and storage*) at the local level. The grid can be the amazing machine it is, everything still interconnected, and all the benefits that brings, but generation can be local, highly redundant, highly distributed, and highly efficient.
Something that is encouraged a lot more here in Hungary than rooftop solar panels: solar collectors for water heating - does not hurt the grid - still lowers energy consumption - still makes rooftops and sunlight useful - storing heat in water is way easier than batteries Also, years ago when this was a big topic, collectors were more energy efficient than panels, I think? But with technological advancements I'm not sure if it still stands. Edit: googled it, solar collectors are still way more efficient than solar panels.
The problem with solar heat is that you get lots of heat in summer and have to take special precautions not to melt/explode your system, whereas in winter, the heat output is usually way too low to heat a home and you need auxiliary (fossil/electrical/other) heat. And given the versatility of electrical energy (especially compared with the relatively low concentration of heat in hot water), photovoltaics is not necessarily worse despite its lower thermodynamic efficiency.
Solar heating is a very bad idea and a total waste of valuable roof space. There is not a single good reason anymore to use them nowadays. You get hot water during summer. Nice. With solar power you get a cool house in summer and warm in the winter. "Energy efficient" is absolutely not the issue.
@@whuzzzup According to a 2016 study*, solar collectors are only half as efficient in the winter (15%) than in the summer (30%), but that still sounds surprisingly good to me. Also even the winter one is really close to the maximum optimal efficiency of solar panels which is around 20%, so if you don't have enough hot water in the winter with collectors, you won't have enough with panels either. It's not that much of a gain in the summer, I get it, but that argument is made with "solars being a good idea" in mind, that this video disputes. That's why my thoughtprocess' starting point was "alternatives to solar panels". *"Design, Fabrication, and Efficiency Study of a Novel Solar Thermal Water Heating System: Towards Sustainable Development" by M. Z. H. Khan, M. R. Al-Mamun, S. Sikdar, P. K. Halder, and M. R. Hasan
@@poioio96 People here have solar thermal because it was basically a tax trap. Now they are stuck with this inferior technology that needs maintenance for the oil lines and is prone to hail damage, especially if you have the expensive vacuum ones. They might be more efficient in theory in winter - if there is enough direct sunlight, but you are basically wasting 90% (made up number) of the energy produced in summer. With solar electric you never waste energy - you use it to cool the house, or sell it in summer. And in winter you use it to run your heat-pump that is far more efficient than a heating rod, so 1 kWh of electricity will give you 3 kWh of heat (or more). Nowadays (having super cheap solar electric panels and heat pumps) it's a complete waste of roof space.
As far as alleviating the duck curve, I've long thought we need several large east-west HVDC lines running all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific (it's part of what's sometimes referred to as the "Supergrid"). Peak solar/wind in Florida is at a different time than California. You could then sell the excess power across the continent. It wouldn't completely flatten the duck curve, but it would make it flatter than it is now.
One thing you need to consider is that none of the lines used to handle power are super-conducting. Which means the longer the run the more loss of power you have as it gets converted to heat.The more current you try to push through the wire the hotter it gets, and as metal expands when temperature rises, the wire hanging between the towers sag. And in places like California where the people responsible for power line maintenance fail in their jobs, you get massive forest fires.
@@wallykramer7566 hvdc changes that paradigm somewhat, and of course the economics are continuously changing with the price of energy. One day the answer to "is it cheaper to truck gallons of oil across the country to a local generator instead of sending that equivalent energy over hvdc lines?" will change. Power transmission technology is continuously improving and power line maintenance *should* be getting cheaper. Wonder why the utilities keep charging more for distribution, transmission, and maintenance regardless, though...
Here in Finland, getting roof solar has been incetivized without hurting the grid maintenance. Firstly, buying electricity is divided into two separate parts, the grid cost (or the "transmission"), and the energy cost. This is done so that you can buy the energy from the supplier you want (whether it be for supporting your favorite sources of electricity or just selecting the cheapest option), even when the grid is essentially monopoly for the local company. The energy and grid costs have to be splitted, by law, even if you buy the energy from the same company who has the local grid. Now, incetivizing becomes waaay easier when the grid cost is handled separately. You just discount the energy price (or set some price for the energy put back to the grid or whatever). Usually backfeeding the grid actually also has small grid fee to assure that the company doesn't fall short on the maintenance fees, even if somebody would only act as supplier and not buy from the grid.
This video describes net metering as something i've never encountered. Our suburban rooftop solar sells (last i checked) at 7c/unit, about 1/4 the cost to buy from the grid. Edit: We also have a substantial grid connection fee.
Yeah, the video is wildly misinformed for the majority of people worldwide. There are apparently still a few places in the world where you can get true net metering, but for everywhere else, the points Alec makes his conclusions on are incorrect, so the conclusions themselves are wildly off. The idea of a neighbors panels making my electricity bill higher is just a power company's fantasy in almost all cases
@@UnreasonableSteve "You, individual gardeners growing your own food, buy your way out of grocery store receipts, forcing us grocery stores to raise prices, so it is your fault that everyone else pay more!". Same flawed logic.
Exactly this. I pay $0.200351/kWH, but sell back at $0.083/kWH, and I also pay a $28.89/month fixed fee just to be connected to the grid. And if we ever get close to the point where there's too much generation during the day (we're a LONG way from that in my jurisdiction) it can easily be solved by introducing time of use metering to incentivize people to shift both their consumption, and their exporting, to times when there is more demand/less generation.
Same. My install came from Solar City. I pay them for all the energy generated by the panels, that is how the panels are paid off. 8.4c/KWh. My grid connection, is ~12c/KWh. And I am a net importer since on my 2-story house there is not enough space to offset the usage of both floors. Why the utility could not offer that plan, don't know! The "thorny issue" of who pays for the roof damage isn't thorny, nor an issue. We have been installing solar panels for decades now. It is a solved problem. Not only that, if the local power monopoly had a similar price structure (~9c for solar generated, 12c for imported power) this would incentivize people to use power during the day. So, that's another issue down. As for the duck curve, tough. Seriously, don't care. The capacity would have to be there to generate the power during the day regardless. And if your concern is that the panel is inefficient and better placed by the local power monopoly, guess what, they still have to deal with the duck curve! That is a problem for them to solve. Finally, why are some people in the solar sector pushing for it in spite of the reservations? Simple, their concern is that, unlike many of the current grifters in the political class who pay lip service to climate change but don't adjust their purchasing and travel habits to match, those people honestly believe we need to do things to reduce carbon emissions NOW. If you truly believe that, "inequity" is not a concern. If this is an emergency, then you fix the problem NOW, and address the problems later. Because the problems that are being pushed to later are not in a vacuum. They are compared to THE END IS NEIGH rhetoric of climate change. Which is worse for your neighbor? A slight increase to their power bill. Collapse of civilization. If you truly believe the more dire predictions of climate change which is closer to the collapse of civilization, then the answer is pretty obvious. And that is why those people keep pushing as much roof top solar as possible. Every KWh a panel generates is a KWh less carbon dumped into the atmosphere. That's it, that's the equation.
I actually do have net metering. I have two meters, and every kwh I push to the grid is removed from from my consumption from the grid, 1:1. And yes, I do have a grid connection fee too, but it is comparatively small. Yeah, depending on where you live AND when your system was installed, you may or may not have this option. I'm pretty sure he knows this, but it was not entirely clear because he repeatedly started to say something, and stopped to say whatever else popped into his head. I think he just used incorrect shorthand of 'net metering' to mean 'grid connected rooftop solar'. Most of his points about rooftop solar, though, are relevant regardless of the billing/metering plan.
Finally subscribed to this channel because Alec said "rocket surgery". Fun fact: Many of the more routine NASA missions involve maintenance or repair of satellites, which is _literally_ rocket surgery. I can easily imagine a more egalitarian society in which every available rooftop backfeeds into battery storage where we now have power substations. I can also imagine changing building codes such that every south-facing rooftop is solar and a modest percentage of every domicile's space (and it wouldn't be more than the size of a small bureau per person) is dedicated to LiFePO battery storage. I can't imagine such societal shifts within my lifetime, but it's a nice dream.
I used the phrase rocket surgery once, and someone immediately jumped on me to say "Well *actually* It's ROCKET SCIENCE or BRAIN SURGERY, there's no such thing as rocket surgery..." and I just... died a little inside.
Interesting. I hadn't considered the cost shifting involved in rooftop solar. It's something I've been considering (tho not seriously as I don't really have southern exposure on my roof in the first place), but now I'm less sure.
I don't think adding solar which is heavy to roof, that add holes to roof to attach like 1000 nails and screws, that wind also can catch, that contractor can mess up somehow, is wise for house.. . . Don't the sun shine on yard why not build a 45 degree structure from back property line. If the only answer is "building codes" that's a bad answer. . . But I love solar, it's amazing for $100k of cells and batts could have modern life in middle of jungle or mountain, what amazing tech. But amortized that's $10000 yearly so people prefer grid costing $3000. But amazing tech ...
@@deelkar ... We should live in EV campervans shaped like a wedge, w solar on roof, which extends a forward roof and rear roof to triple area, and it can inch forward in circle every half hour to track sun. . . Ha. . Sounds silly..
West and/or East facing or South East or South West roofs work well, because you're more likely to be able to use the electricity directly, which is always best. South facing generates more electricity, but it's less economically desirable electricity.
@@BooBaddyBig if you can "sink" a LOT of that electricity into heating a storage water tank OR boost heating living space (thermal mass) or charging an EV IE a heavy load that is time of demand controllable
A SPAN panel is like 30x the cost of a normal panel, and it would be pretty ridiculous to install one of those and not spend the extra 10%-25% to also upgrade your service. I think Eaton Smart breakers are more what you're looking for (just a shame they only make WiFi models and not Z-Wave)
10-25% of what? The Span panel? A Span panel, from a quick search, is about $4000, which is expensive. But if your power runs underground (as it does in many places) and you have to trench and run new wires underground, particularly in an area where the wires run under a sidewalk or street, no f-ing way you’re going to do that for even the same price as the span panel, let alone 10-25% of it. So, not sure where your numbers are coming from, but they seem wildly inaccurate.
@@ouch1011 The panel alone is $4500 inclusive of nothing (not even shipping) and installation is estimated to cost at least $3500, so you're in it for a minimum of $8k, and probably more like $10k+. And while you could have a 1/2 mile long driveway and need to spend $20k for new buried service, for the vast majority of people it's not going to cost more than $2k, and for many people with overhead service it's more like $750. So that is where I got my numbers, though I don't know where your numbers are coming from, but they're the ones that seem inaccurate.
I have been having doubts about installing solar panels and you very clearly explained why. It doesn’t make sense without local storage, but if I do that, the breakeven point will be so far into the future that I can’t financially justify it…
The breakeven point is infinity if you don't start. Payback begins when you switch it on, and it insulates you from fossil fuel price hikes. Also, the benefits are not just financial. It is worth a lot to me to know that I'm not contributing to filling up children's lungs with poisons or killing life and reducing the habitability of the only home we have. If anyone says to me what did I do to help in the fight against global heating, then I can answer proudly and die contented that I did my bit.
Hi! Recently stumbled across your channels and have gone through quite a number of videos at this point. I'm Swedish and I'm obviously not an expert in the US power grid system, but I think I have a fair grasp on it. And I don't see why you couldn't theoretically use the same method we use. While I have more than just a few salty remarks on how the Swedish power grid is run, this very problem with solar panels is actually not one of them, and I thought I'd explain why. Every single-family house (or town house, etc) that's connected to the grid has 2 separate power bills each month. There is one bill from the grid-operator (which operator that is depends on exactly where you live, but there are a handful of them across the country), and then there is a bill from your "power-trading"-company. Now that CAN be the same company if you so choose, but you are 100% free to choose whatever power-trading company you wish. And there are a LOT of power-trading companies. One can think of them as power-brokers really. Now, what happens is that the bill from your power-trading company consists of simply the cost of the energy you've bought, offset by the energy you've sold. (and in some cases, such as mine, also offset by me offering up grid-stabilizing in the form of letting them control when my EV charges, I get paid quite handsomely for it and it's still charged in time, they just optimize when it's best for the grid) I have hourly rates, so I'm always incentivized to use energy when it's the cheapest, which is also when demand is at it's lowest, which helps flatten the curve. All solar generation that's exported is also on hourly rates, and that's not because I buy energy like that, it's always like that for everybody. Buying and selling is technically two different contracts, and while you can buy on fixed rates (and other special deals), I don't know of anyone offering anything other than hourly rates for buying your exported solar energy. During the summer months I generally end up earning money, which is held by my power-trading company and used to offset the bills in the darker months. But then we get to the OTHER bill I get each month, and that's from the grid provider. That bill has 3 parts. First is a tax-collection for using energy (so it doesn't really go to the grip operator, it goes to our version of the IRS, the grid operator is just the collector since the amount is based on used energy, so by using my own solar energy I don't have to pay as much in tax). Second is a small offsetting bonus for supplying power locally. This is reflecting of how much I've saved the grid operator from having to transport energy from further away, and thus reducing transmission losses. This is a very minor post, for reference the tax per kWh is just shy of 60, and the grid helping bonus is generally in the single digits per kWh any given month. Thirdly, and this is where it gets interesting, there is a fixed subscription fee for being connected to the grid, and it's completely dependent on your service level. Any house can choose from a quite wide variety of different service levels (I gather that there's pretty much only 100A and 200A in the US?). Since we have 3-phase the actual Ampere levels are quite different and won't tell you much, but translated into power (rounded) the service levels are: 7 kW (only apartments use that low mains), 11 kW, 14 kW, 17 kW, 22 kW, 33 kW, and 44 kW. The grid operator is required by law to provide you with the option of how large your main breaker should be, up to and including the level that gives you a whooping 44 kW. But it also gets progressively more expensive to have the higher levels. And it's not just a one-time cost, it's a running maintenance fee you pay each month. Most houses generally fall in the 11 kW - 17 kW range. I have a 22 kW main breaker, which is not unheard of, but not common. 33 kW and 44 kW are basically not a thing for normal people, that's if you have a farm or something. The point here though (you're not the only one who has a penchant for being long winded btw... this is a very abbreviated version of what I first felt like writing...) is that the cost for being connected to the grid is separated from the costs AND earnings from buying and selling energy ON the grid. There's so many more things I kind of want to bring up, but they're not entirely related to the problem of grid stability funding, so I shall resist. ^^
I live in San Antonio TX, so my feelings about the grid are not quite as sanguine as yours. I’ve recently started looking at rooftop solar (with storage) and have found a few things that speak to your points. BTW, the reason I’m looking at solar is due to the last few years here in TX. I have no faith that the powers that be have any interest in “fixing” anything. I think they want to band-aid the problem and push it beyond their administrations. Our local utility sort of practices net metering. Any power you buy from them is $ 0.14 a kw, but any power they buy from you is $0.10. So you are helping to support the grid. The other item I’ve found is that there are inverter systems now that can disconnect you from the grid during a power outage and allow you to run individually off the grid, which is the way I’m planning to go. I will not likely have an array that can support all of my household needs, but If I can have access to SOME power when TX gets cold and the folks who run our grid react like cocaine addled spider monkeys, then I’ll take it.
I feel you. My grid is pretty good here, but I have extended family there, and it's infuriating to see how political grand-standing and hubris have caused the leadership (there and in Washington) to fail their citizenry so badly. Shameful. We've maybe gotten too comfortable, and lost focus as a nation. But given recent geopolitical events, I hope we figure it out soon.
Our electricity bill includes separate line items for per-kWh electricity use (on-peak, mid-peak, and off-peak), as well as for per-kWh connection, distribution, and transmission. I think having the electricity net metered but the other per-kWh charges applied regardless of which direction the electricity was flowing would be the fairest system. You'd have real trouble selling that to the public though.
In the UK, the novel scheme is to time warp consumption. Mains is charged and metered at various "time of day rates" so according to your supplier a night time 5 - 7 hours will be charged at about a third of the peak daytime rate. So, if you draw lots of electricity over the night time cheap rate period and charge a battery, and you then consume that electricity at times when day or peak rate charges apply. The result is typically a 50% saving in electricity cost for using the same amount of power/energy. Typically the night time draw is 10kWh at 15p/kWh which replaces 10kWh which at daytime rates would cost 45p/kWh. So we spend £1.50 at night to get £4.50 worth of daytime electricity.
The issue I have with the change from NEM 2 to NEM 3 is it's taking what is currently a pricing structure that doesn't accurately reflect the costs of grid maintenance and power generation and replacing it with a different pricing structure that still doesn't accurately reflect the costs of grid maintenance and power generation. As of this moment, PG&E is charging me $0.55/kwh for power I consume, but the spot price for power in my area is currently $0.10/kwh (google caiso spot prices for a map of prices). However, last summer during heat waves I've been charged $0.43/kwh while the spot price was over $1.20/kwh. I just want to be charged fairly for both the power I consume and the power I produce, based on real time market conditions. NEM 3 could have unbundled a grid maintenance fee from power consumption and generation rates, but instead it only reduced the amount being credited for solar generation while keeping all other charges the same.
+100, the opaque price structure is the root of the problem. If the grid maintenance is 75% of the total bill amount, then it must be reflected as so, and everyone should have an almost flat rate. Utilities lie in their bills, someone eventually exploits this, and utilities start playing a dirty political blame game about "those filthy riches buying their way out of bills and hurting poors". Disgusting.
I'm curious how this has played out in Australia, where about 1/3 of the homes nationally have rooftop PV, and it's up to 82% in Queensland (at least for houses that have "appropriate" roofs, so I presume some are too shaded or too complex).
It is not uncommon now for grid price to be negative because there is excess power. This is the grid instability mentioned, low demand from all the rooftop input but highly variable, not predictable day to day or hour to hour. A problem of management but quite a way from the peak summer brownouts on the edge of blackout of decades ago. As they said most of the problems are political rather than practical. Energy flow is money flow and where there is money there are people using rules to advantage. Now with periods of too much energy storage gains attention. At this minute , mid-day, start of Autumn ,decent winds East coast grid input price ($AU) is Qld $14.84 per MWh NSW $60.00 SA $-49.83 yes negative price for generation Vic $-44.00 Tas $-47.00 And a new update a few minutes later Qld $0.00 per MWh NSW $60.00 SA $-57.53 Vic $-52.62 Tas $-9.22 Domestic consumers don't see that cheap negative cost power in their bills. Industrial consumers may, 'please sir, turn on your high demand'. Of course the cost of getting power of the grid is only partially the energy production cost as they said.
In NZ we have daily fixed charges built into our power bills for line upkeep. Your kWh usage is charged on top of that. Power companies buy back your kWh you generate at a different (lower) rate to what you are charged for kWh usage too
My electricity plan allows me to keep my free nights (common in Texas due to excess wind energy at night) INSTEAD of receiving any net metering for my solar panels. I love this arrangement from an individual perspective. I’d never thought of it from the large scale you mentioned though. I hope that by switching the burden of my home from high demand days to “flatten the curve” by switching my grid consumption to nights is fair to the larger system.
While we’re talking about home electrification, and knowing your love of heat pumps, now feels like a good time to ask: You’ve often pointed out how even an inefficient heat pump is remarkably efficient- how *inefficient* would it be to move a portable AC unit outside and use it for heating? I know you have one lying around, want to run some tests for me? 😉
Some other commentators already mentioned that in most European countries the energy you feed into the power grid is measured and compensated respectively charged separate from the energy obtained from the grid. In most countries (at least the ones I heard about) you get paid a defined compensation for the energy you feed into the power grid. Typically, this compensation is just a fraction of the price of electric energy. So there is a huge incentive to time your energy consumption with your own generation of electricity. An important achievement of the last years are small photovoltaic installations consisting of one to four modules of ~400 watts each and a micro inverter connected to the power grid by using a normal plug. The micro inverter is allowed to output at most 800 watts and one inverter is allowed per meter. This arrangement is called Balkonkraftwerk (balcony power plant) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Due to very small installation costs and little paperwork needed compared to large installs, this started to be pretty common here in Germany during 2022/23. It is even possible to use a Balkonkraftwerk in rented apartments. In most cases, there will be no compensation for the energy fed into the grid. This makes photovoltaic power generation accessible to more people than before.
That rate structure makes perfect sense because most usage is during the day and that is a problem for the generators. If they can balance their load between day vs night, they (hopefully) won't have to increase (very expensive) generation capacity to meet just those peak loads. Another way is offering a lower rate if you agree to participate in controlled rolling blackouts in order to limit the load on the grid.
Except most usage *isn't* during the day, but in the evening, when everyone gets home from work and starts cooking/doing laundry/taking showers. Which is after the sun starts setting
This is correct. Current annual peak demand levels in almost every part of the country are hot summer afternoons around 2-4 pm (in the winter, peak does shift a bit later but the actual peak is far lower) So yeah solar panels are extremely compatible with reducing grid demand and as such, reducing the biggest cost that power companies have. A utility company obtains more financial benefit by you putting up solar than you get in energy savings, by getting your free assistance with shaving peak demand It's also very equitable so I'm not sure what this guy is on about. A typical residential electric bill has three parts, the commodity cost pass-through plus the time-related delivery cost (how much you demand, basically) plus the fixed meter cost that pays for you to be connected. A person with solar still pays the fixed cost to maintain their share of being connected to the grid, but pays less or nothing for the demand charge since they're putting less strain on the grid
Electrician in Oregon, USA . From my experience doing hundreds of service upgrades, most houses built since the 60s already have service conductors from transformer to house that are rated for 200a service by the utility. Only the service entrance conductors from the mast to the meter need to be changed for code compliance. The reasoning is that the conductors outside the home do not pose a fire Hazzard to the residence and this don't have the same safety margin as conductors ran inside walls.
it occurs to me that all of the issues you have with people who have solar panels not paying for upkeep of the electrical grid would be solved if the electrical grid was taxpayer funded
I'm not sure if it's changed, but over here in Ohio AEP had a set up where you're flat out not allowed to set up solar unless you do it via them, hook it into the grid and allow them to leech off your stores even to your homes detriment (to balance the grid I guess?) Which is very sad and frustrating cause my house has an orientation that would probably benefit a lot from having panels on it for much of the year.
That's because AEP is a for profit publicly-traded company. Their only mandate is to generate profit. Where I live, the power grid is owned and managed by our government. It's still not idea but we have some of the lowest rates in our country. This is a case where the government should be providing critical infrastructure rather than private business.
@@fergusontea I'm from Texas natively where Electricity is still privately owned but by a billion different companies so it's harder to pin frustrations on just one. All I know about the grid up here in Ohio is that AEP owns almost all of it, and nobody likes them because of a long list of mismanagement and greed.
@@bluefish239 -- I'm Canadian. We tend to be relatively socialist which means we have less bullshit when it comes to power but we still have problems. Our public generator is a couple of billion dollars Canadian in debt.
There is the possibility of adding panels not to your roof, but maybe in another spot (back yard maybe?) and have those charge up private battery backups for yourself, then switching over if/when you need to.
Good points as always; I think you will find that you the homeowner will be charged (at least a base rate) for services that you do not use.I think that this issue will be addressed in the manner in which electric car owners,in some places, pay a extra fee because they don't pay a gas tax.
Fellow Chicagoan here, going through the panel upgrade question right now. I'm getting an electric car and debating the best way to power it. I have a estimate from an electrician for a 200amp panel for $8k. The more I learn, the less that seems wise.
Been watching for a while and I love that you've dived into my alley finally. I am a long time PV designer for the largest residential solar provider and I've always found it crazy how unfair solar is for main utility companies and the grid. It's partly why there has been a huge shift in the industry to get battery storage added to all systems but it is tricky. At the moment there is a massive push for PV with batteries (battery storage varies greatly),SPAN panels, plus EV chargers, factor in that a lot of homes in recent years have already had gas generators installed that are incompatible/need to be separate from the PV and you have a confusing mish mash of products and configurations that most homeowners don't understand at all.The NEM 3.0 that CA utilities are pushing has everyone scrambling to get grandfathered in but in the meantime a new solution (maybe) is that all residential solar in CA at least once NEM 3.0 rolls around will be paired with a battery to have the battery provide power at peak grid usage to hopefully alleviate some of the concerns discussed in this video. TLDR - you are absolutely correct that residential solar doesn't make sense but it's constantly evolving as new products become available and there are a lot of people, like me, who are trying to make it make sense.
"mish mash of products" -- Outback's Mojave and Schneider's XW Pro Hybrid Inverter. Coupled with AC-coupled solar. This is all most people need. Its pretty simple but most contractors in my area have no idea of what to do with batteries. They dont even know the main players in hybrid inverters to connect batteries to the grid.
Wow, thanks Sempra(Tm) for that excellent grass roots comment! Residential solar is in no way "unfair" to the utilities, considering the rules it's under (particularly in California) were all but designed by the utilities. "A lot of homes in recent years have gas generators" the amount of homes that have generator hookups that in *any* way impact grid or solar connections is vanishingly small. Perhaps your particular "experience" varies because people who want to be self sufficient with solar panels+batteries have some overlap with people who have a whole home generator backup. Sampling bias for sure. How in the world do you see solar panels with NEM2 as "doesn't make sense"? This really does read like someone paid by an "investor" owned utility
> I've always found it crazy how unfair solar is for main utility companies and the grid. How is it unfair? PG&E sent me a bill. If the cost of maintaing the grid was 75% of the total, then I'd expect to see this in their itemization. But I see a completely different picture: they charge me mostly for power comsumption, not for the grid maintenance. It is they who composed the bill, not me. Nobody forced them. They could itemize true costs, but they didn't. So, do they lie to me? Is it fair? If grid maintenance costs more than stated in the bill, then ustility is a dishonest company, and they deserve to be punished for that.
@@UnreasonableSteve First off, no need to attack. Second, gas generators don't need to be whole home, they can be partial, small big, portable, fixed, cheap, expensive, installed by a pro, or installed by a clueless homeowner, and they are becoming very common. Third, my point about unfairness is that in a truly free market, the utility companies could completely deny the installation of residential solar because their equipment is still required for the home to function unless the home is setup with whole home battery backup. The point made in the video is that the standard PV install only hurts the utility companies and grid which it does. If you are the utility company you do not want to have to pay the homeowners for energy generation that utilizes their equipment. It would be different if the utility company was actively seeking homeowners to generate excess energy but they aren't and that's fair so NEM 3.0 is fair and NEM 2.0 is less fair.
@@onebronx Don't get me wrong, utility companies suck and likely a good amount of them are taking advantage of people. However, at the moment we are reliant on them so it sucks but it is what it is and if you care enough, pester the city or politicians to get something done about it. My point was solar is unfair to them, irrelevant to them being good or bad.
Had to replace my main breaker panel a few years ago. We went ahead and upgraded to 200A at the same time. There was only a negligible cost difference and no difference in downtime since the utility and the electrician work in parallel. But we have a straight shot from the pole to our house, so it was dead simple. However, we have yet to actually need that extra 100A, and it's only there in case we need an EV charger install down the line. Especially with lights and appliances getting more efficient, we rarely pull even close to capacity, even at peak usage.
On the other hand, I think it's a great idea for people to cap their gas connection, and opt out of that system. Now you don't need to pay delivery fees and less money going towards that fossil fuel based infrastructure.
I had my service upgraded from 100 amps to 200 amps and it cost me about $3500 back in 2018. So it's not exactly cheap but in the world of home improvement it's also not super expensive. So that gives you some idea of what it would cost.
I've seen a quote for 20,000 dollarydoos before! The house wasn't even that far from the transformer but it was in a developed area and would've required ripping up sidewalks. The price seems to be very location dependent from my experience.
$2200 in 2020, though that also included running a 6-3 w/ground to a new EVSE (the impetus for upgrading - existing 100A panel had more total circuits than it was rated for) Probably $1800 for parts/labor for everything except the EVSE. About 10 years earlier our utility had undergrounded every line in town and that required running new lines to everybody's meter. They ran wire sufficient to provide 200 amp service since they had to run new lines anyway
I wonder how much grid maintenance would go down if the power companies would actually put money into upgrading the grid? I've heard for years about how the grid its self is antiquated and can barely handle the amount of demand it has on it. We need to build a smarter grid that can transfer power more efficiently, we're only using more power every year.
Not directly related here but I wanted to advocate for hybrid electric (heat pump) water heaters. Water heaters tend to get replaced more frequently than e.g. the heating system, so next time you have to do it, get a hybrid electric water heater, great first step towards more electric and less fossil fuel use in your house. I've had one for several years (it replaced domestic hot water heating from my oil-burning furnace; so great not to hear that thing turn on in the middle of the summer!) and it's hardly ever used the resistive "backup" heating, just a little heat pump, uses very little electricity compared to normal electric hot water.
@@Jcewazhere I have the Rheem 50g Hybrid water heater with a heat pump at the top used to pull the heat out of the air and expel the cold into the room it's in (usually cooling the garage a little). I love it as it uses at least 5x less electricity to heat the water. While it can take longer using the heat pump instead of the heating elements (it has both but in energy saver mode it uses the heat pump 90% of the time). It can cost $1,200 vs a $400 standard water heater, but over the life of the water heater the money saved significantly increases. Year 1: Cost of Hybrid ($1,200) plus 1 year of use ($100) = $1,300; Cost of standard ($400) plus 1 year of use ($500) = $900. Year 2: Hybrid year 1 ($1,300) plus year 2 use ($100) = $1,400; Standard year 1 ($900) plus year 2 use ($500) = $1,400; After year 2 add $100 for hybrid and $500 for standard each year, you can see the savings. After 10 years, the hybrid has cost you $2,200 while the standard has cost you $5,400. You can control the hybrid to use the heating elements if you have guests over using more hot water than normal to heat the water faster for additional use.
The one thing that you said makes it all make sense: "A panel in a farm > A panel on a rooftop". Given that panels are currently a finite resource right now, it makes much more sense to fill up farms with collectively-owned panels than have privately owned panels on rooftops.
Too many Americans have been brainwashed to be afraid of and freak out about anything done collectively that they can't opt out oof without a negative consequence or anything related to taxes as they've been made to think "taxes are evil and theft".
@@jwb52z9 Yep. Beau of the Fifth Column just dropped a video about the lowest paying college majors in the US. No surprise that education was 4 of the lowest 10.
There is a device called SplitVolt that will let you switch water heater off if the drier is running, it's made for connecting an EV charger and a drier to the same 30A outlet. Putting a plug on the water heater might break code, I haven't seen a hardwired version of the SplitVolt but maybe they do exist.
@@kc9scott Different areas have different codes for anything that mixes electricity and water, so it might be fine in some areas but not others. Usually it's a GFCI issue, hardwired doesn't need one, but if you use a plug it does, and the higher in amps you go the more expensive GFCI breakers get vs. normal breakers.
I get a HUGE amount of spam, phone calls as well as texts and even some guy at Costco to install solar panels. Which is even more annoying for me, because I rent! But their pitches all have the hallmarks of "too good to be true". I'd probably have been talked into it if I did my own house, or even a condo!, but poverty has saved me from that! EVs, too! Being broke is not so bad, once in a while. 😥 So, no rooftop solar for me, no matter how much I might have wanted it.
Yeah EVs I still don't trust, they need some more time to refine, a friend of mines dad had bought one of the new F-150 Lightnings and he has had many issues it's even left him stranded a couple times, meanwhile the 1999 F-150 his neighbor has owned since new is still going strong because he takes care of it, it's just so simple to repair and maintain compared to an EV.
@Cody The Radiogen I hate the ozone argument every time it's brought up. The ozone didn't just fix itself all on its own! Governments around the world banned the use of CFCs (the primary cause of the destruction of the ozone layer), which allowed the ozone layer to heal. If we continued to use CFCs, the ozone layer would not have healed.
Solar PV absolutely makes sense. But, yes there are lots of sleazy sales pitches. But a good purchase of a PV system at a reasonable price pays for itself over time. I self-installed and it is ridiculous how little I pay for energy...not gasoline since I have an EV, replaced furnace with heat pump, replaced water heater with heat pump water heater, etc.
@Cody The Radiogen "Nobody's did[sic] anything different and the ozone layer fixed itself" except for banning the pollutant that is largely responsible for ozone depletion.
I know this is a very old video, but just watched it today. Others may have mentioned, but I think the problem of equity and sustainability of “the grid” ends up different state by state. In NYS electricity deregulation yielded 2 parts to your bill; generation and transmission (the grid). Net metering only applies to the generation portion of the bill. So even if the rooftop Solar we installed about 10 months ago could produce more power than we use in a year (the most panels we could fit only came to about 1/3), we would still be paying the transmission portion of the bill to support the grid.
I totally agree with you about solar and the grid but I see that even with a 10 year payback, I still see people going solar because it's very empowering being energy independent. I also believe going solar is better than buying a new car.
Definitely. There's something that feels really American regarding about solar - i.e. the ability to just be really independent, that attracts a lot of people, and it makes sense.
@@isaac10231 American with standing, independenc is a great feeling. Because of our solar system my wife love the fact that she can take the EV out basically for free or when we have family around we can drive them around the island without the guilt of gas money. Solar keeps the wealth in my pocket rather than giving it to some greedy petroleum corp.
In the UK, households pay a daily "standing charge" which goes towards the grid infrastructure, and we have to have meters that can differentiate the amount being fed to the grid vs the amount being pulled from it, rather than just netting it, with the kWh cost difference currently being circa 7:1 for energy consumed vs energy fed into the grid.
@@alanwood9804 7:1 based on 35p SVR vs 5p typical feed in when looking at whole-day tariffs, but yes, there are a small number of specialist tariffs that offer better ratios than that eg octopus flex.
I’m really interested in air-to-water heat pumps, especially since they can be retrofit to existing wet systems (which are still pretty common where I’m at) and provide dhw. Curious what your thoughts are.
Yeah indeed. Radiators are the norm for residential buildings throughout Europe, so I was kinda wondering why he mentioned in the main video that heat pumps wouldn't be as good a solution as they are for HVAC residences. As far as I know air-to-water heat pumps are still becoming quite common here
Thorny.
Not necessarily impossible to solve, but thorny. And since I don't think I made this explicit in the video, there are really two issues I have: 1) I think that pushing homeowners into spending big bucks supplying power for the grid is a little bit questionable from the start (it shouldn't be "up to us") and 2) incentive structures which make the payback timeframe for system installation quick and easy to swallow are just not sustainable and in tension with supporting the broader grid.
Is there a way we could make this work better? Absolutely! But I honestly don't know if once we get there having personal rooftop solar makes any sense compared to grid-scale projects.
My local utility upped prices last year by almost an order of magnitude (my mom, year on year, went from a bill of ~$150 to over $900 for June), for no apparent reason. Luckily, our bill didn’t jump nearly as much as hers (which is definitely because we have a newer house with better insulation and a more efficient AC). That said, I live in a place where solar is completely viable for getting off the grid, but we recently bought our house and can’t really afford that upgrade atm.
I don’t know if they jacked the price like that because of how much money they’re losing because so many people are switching to solar or what, but it’s pretty sus. Because solar is definitely becoming pretty common here.
Anyway, my point with all that is to say that my biggest concerns with rooftop solar are 1) long-term maintenance (especially in an area prone to hurricanes and tornadoes) and 2) those unable to convert to solar getting “left behind” as the costs for fuel rise, but are distributed amongst fewer people. Yes, I understand that less people drawing from the grid means less raw cost of production, but it doesn’t mean less maintenance on the overall grid or fewer people needing to be employed across the entire system to run it and repair it. Add in cost of fuel increases (presuming the utilities aren’t converting to renewables because they figure the consumer can do that if they care), and you end up with a situation where the poorest households are paying the most for electricity because they are the only ones left propping up the old system.
There's a similar problem with EVs, we're rolling them out everywhere all at the same time but given that there are limits in terms of how many we can produce it would be far more useful to roll them out in areas with higher renewable charging opportunities first if we're trying to maximize the environmental benefits.
I'm not from US so my opinion is more global concern focused. Equality, sustainability and emission reduction, as you said is a society issue. As such, many of the valid concerns you put on the table should not be addressed on individual decisions, but on government policies. Meaning, at the end of the day, this is a climate change concern, thus it is a government responsability to address the unwanted side effects of incentivizing the use of private individual power generation. It should not be unfair to your neighboor, because it should not be related to the stock value or profit of the private company power grid supplier. If the country government wants to reduce the carbon footprint, there is a cost to that. In the macroscale, that means that if you get too high discount on your bill, that should be paid by the government, not your neighboors's bill, that includes another citizen in the other end of the country, that includes even yourself with your taxes. If you have the capability to go off grid (not necessarily that you do), that should also not been seen as hurting the grid (thinking so is like thinking that an empty apartment is hurting the grid). Keep in mind that the *uttermost goal is not to get a cheaper bill, it is to reduce the carbon footprint*. The society as a whole (through taxes and anual budgets) has to pay for that. Of course its not an easy problem to solve, the power grid "machinary" is astonishinly complex and it has been working as it is for a very long long time, and as with any paradigm shift, it is hard to foresee the impacts and side effect. Without clear migration plans from governments (and very likely that implies subsidies here and there), it remains a "everyman for themselves" scheme. Thank you for your thoughts, the entire planet should be debating more about it. Sorry for the long post.
You are very thoughtful about the implications on society as a whole.
I aprechiate that, since in the US this notion of "rugged individiualism" is ridiciusly overemphasized.
I'm not buying your case. This winter season my utility company raised rates 60% citing larger costs from suppliers, due to higher nat gas costs, not higher maintenance costs.
Next issue is those maintenance costs how are they derived? If I have solar and my excess goes to my neighbors than shouldn't that also reduce some of the costs of the power company maintenance costs. Do you work for the utilities.
My bill went from under 100 dollars per month to over 200. Maybe if the utility companies weren't multinational wall st corporate shareholder greed infested monopolized conglomerates your arguments might hold water.
Can't wait to see your next article on why we should. All love cable providers
Fun aside: I'm a long haul trucker and there have been some super cool moves towards electrification of idle systems over the past few years. When I started driving in 2016 most trucks companies assigned me were designed either to idle the engine all night or run a diesel generator (APU) to keep the sleeping driver comfy. Not ideal from an emissions and noise pollution standpoint. There were some truckstops with systems that fit in the window with power, cable, internet, and pumped in HVAC from an overhead gantry, but it was awkward and most drivers didn't bother with it. Few companies would reimburse the cost of the window adapters or the nightly cost for the parking spot. In addition, the cost per night was usually more expensive than the amount of fuel you'd burn in an APU, which your employer will happily pay for.
Fast forward to today, my current truck has extra batteries in a compartment between the frame rails at the back of the cab, solar panels on the roof, and an electric AC with an efficient little diesel burning heater. If sleeping during the day, you can turn the key off and the solar panel can run the fridge, A/C, and a few mobile device chargers without issue and still leave the batteries enough charge to go hours after sunset. Sleep at night and you can have the truck on a standby mode where it will pop the engine on for 30 to 60 minutes at a time to recharge the batteries if you manage to deplete them or if the sleeper HVAC isn't able to keep the living quarters at a comfy temperature. On really cold nights it uses a little more diesel fuel than an APU would have, but the rest of the year it rarely has to burn any extra fuel at all, especially if you get into a "sleep during the day drive at night" cadence!
The electric AC also means that you can just plug the truck into a regular NEMA 5-15 socket and happily run the thing all night if you can park close enough to a power outlet, though truckstops with outlets specifically for that purpose often try to charge silly prices for the electricity that make it not worth plugging in.
I’m glad to hear this. I drive an EV and some of the charging locations are a truck stops. I’ve been to some truck stops, especially in winter, where the smell of diesel is so thick that it becomes almost nauseating. Long-haul trucks are massive, so there is no reason why they couldn’t add some solar and battery storage to them specifically for overnight usage. Glad to hear that they’re starting to do this.
@@ouch1011 It will take the better part of a decade for this stuff to get much widespread use, sadly, and even then folks that buy trucks second hand rarely bother to learn how to use or maintain idle-reduction tech, so they might not last through more than the first and second owners of the truck. I'm hopeful they will be easier to keep working than the diesel generators, since the battery systems are OEM where the generators usually were not, but it depends on how often parts other than the relatively cheap batteries and filters need to be replaced.
Won’t that added weight reduce the overall load capacity you can haul? Batteries are heavy, so if you have to haul around a bunch of them, it would really cut into your hauling capacity. Sound like truck stops really just need to have “plug ins” like campgrounds have for campers. The truckers would obviously need to reconfigure the truck a bit, but seems like a better systen
@@nathan1sixteen The batteries are lighter than the diesel generators they replace and are eligible for the same waivers for the additional weight. It really doesn't take many batteries to cover a single driver's electricity needs for an 8 to 12 hour break. Most semis have 4 lead-acid batteries. Mine has 8.
I Would love to be the Sleep during the day drive at night kind of truck driver because I always do my best work at night but then again I've never operated a motor vehicle in my entire 38 year lifespan so there's that. I just work in IT for healthcare as a front line tech support person for hospitals over night from my house so I don't have to go anywhere and I just stay up all night pounding emails and calls from Doctors and nurses and then sleep all day.
Oh man, this is so good. So many tech centered channels are just hyper fixated on the technical solutions to problems that they don't account for what is usually the actual impedance to progress: politics, liability & economics. I appreciate your nuanced explanation so much here, I hadn't really considered those issues wrt solar, ownership, liability & overall grid stability.
Yes. I get very disappointed with the channels that just flat out ignore - or even discount and dismiss - not just the nuts and bolts of the things, but the reality of human beings - renters, pedestrians, and anyone who is not making six figures - who are not going to be able to access these things and may be actively injured by them.
@@elizabethpemberton8445 Why would you need to "make six figures" to be able to benefit from rooftop solar? Multiple colleagues of mine just got solar installed on their houses for $0 down, and no loan. They're leasing the panels from the solar provider, who have effectively become their power company. My colleagues pay *them*, now, instead of SoCal Edison.
there is nothing capitalism doesn't ruin
@@coredumperror as long as your can afford a new roof, and are okay with dictatorship of the rich or non public electricity
@@coredumperror Yes, rooftop solar is accessible for many homeowners who make less than six figures. And there are various programs with subsidies, etc., for many power-related adaptations for homeowners. However, speaking to valgov3001’s point, many of the technical solutions proposed for many things and celebrated by tech channels, not specifically limited to rooftop solar, but self-driving cars on a magic grid, or replacing gas stoves, or improved HVAC and installation-based solutions for energy and resource conservation, for example, are not available to a large number of people. I am a renter and my income is low five figures. I can’t even change out my old gas range, much less install a car charger or rooftop solar. So many channels act as if people like me - and I am quite privileged compared to a lot of people - just don’t exist, and that homeowners are all we need to consider. To even get the mention of “of course renters can’t do this” is surprisingly rare. Maybe this is not such a big deal for rooftop solar specifically, but when you get used to thinking of homeowners with decent incomes as the norm, and the lowest level you need to consider in all sorts of public policy, people below that level can suffer in many ways.
Personally, I think there's far more potential in parking lot solar than rooftop solar. Parking lots are basically economic dead weight, so adding renewable energy production to them would be amazing from a land-use standpoint. They're also already either owned by large commercial entities, or the government, so they fit into the existing model for energy development. Plus, shade for your car and some reduction in the heat island effect.
We have solar panels above half of the parking lot at the local Walmart, it keeps things shady and helps to offset the enormous amount of energy said commercial infrastructure consumes. IMO, not just parking lots, but the rooftops of these large commercial buildings should also have panels all over the place, there's so much surface area that just absorbs the sun's heat and light for nothing, let's make use of it!
parking lot solar does make a lot of sense as things stand, but some part of me hates all attempts trying to eek utility out of the big box + parking lot hellscape when moving away from it will always be better for whatever context, in this case energy use, climate impact, and general economics.
There is also a benefit in winter months, even when the panels are covered by snow and not producing at the moment. By reducing snow and ice build up on cars parked during freezing precipitation, you reduce the amount of idle time folks are sitting there using the defroster instead of a windshield scraper.
Also reduces plowing requirements - you still have to plow the lanes, but not the spaces.
The trick (as with *all* massive solar solutions in high traffic areas) is to pay attention to sun position and potential reflections and glare issues (particularly.on adjacent roadways). But that's something that can be readily calculated these days with civil engineering tools that can set up a 3D model of the proposed job and do some ray analysis.
That is heading in the direction of the "solar roads" scam, which has not proven to be feasible. There are good reasons parking lots are open, cost being the first. Rather than install parking lot solar, ten years down the line you will have a parking fee added on to your purchases.
@@geodkyt IMO solar panels would cause snow melt and cause water drainage and de-icing problems for the parking lot. All these casual ideas by commenters are not of much value without a study and cost evaluations by engineers. This is what they do, and they have mostly considered and dismissed all these genius you tube fans "new" ideas.
Here in Sweden we have a grid fee, determined by your main breaker size on top of the metered electricity cost, that should finance the grid upkeep. This way, everyone pays in proportion of how much they could strain grid. This of course also incentivizes people to keep their consumption even throughout the day. It is often complained about, but I do not know of a better way to organize this complex issue more transparently.
Agree! The complaints in the video seems to be a solved problem in Sweden.
As long as you separate grid cost is from energy cost both can vary independently, and each will have their respective costs covered.
During 2020 energy cost was really low, much lover than the cost of having each kWh transported to your home. That's fine, if there's an excess of energy it will get cheap and there's.
During 2022 energy got really expensive, but the cost of transporting it stayed the same*, and the bill from your grid operator and your energy trader (they are two different things!) reflected that. There is no inherent thing that makes the cost of energy connected to the cost of transporting energy. There is also no natural law that the cost of transporting energy should always be lower than the cost of the energy.
* a fraction the cost went up, namely the part that covers grid losses.
@@davidh6420 This is already done with water/sewer service where I live. You pay a fixed rate every month to have access to municipal water and sewer, then you have a separate charge for your consumption. Pretty straight forward.
We have pretty much the same solution in Norway, and with the smart meters (AMS) the consumer can watch both historical and real-time electricity consumption hour by hour.
However, in 2022 there were some changes to incentivize electricity consumers to even out their consumption throughout the day (24 hours) as much as possible with lower net rent per kWh during the night (22:00 - 06:00) and the fixed fee for a month is set by max kWh used in one single hour during that month. The latter part has been up to debate because and I agree that the consumption within one single hour determines what the fixed amount will be for the whole month seems illogical. Might be a result of a compromise between political parties, the government, and the grid operators/owners. However, the debate has been overshadowed by the power prices in Norway right now, which is ridiculous, but that is another discussion.
All in all I think the grid in Norway is operated in a pretty good way. It's not cheap to maintain an electrical grid in a long, rugged and sparsely populated country like Norway.
PS: The changes that were made in 2022 was planned long before the power prices increased so enormously.
We have the same in France.
Indeed, seems like more or less a solved problem in Belgium too (we now have pretty much all factors on our electricity bill: grid maintenance, social measures, peak electricity consumption, total electricity consumption, difference between feeding into the grid and getting electricity from the grid,...), but it's taken like 20 years to get to this point. And we have it easier in Europe as most people here agree that social measures are a good thing 😅
Always good to reiterate that context matters! In South Africa here, our power is currently on rolling blackouts, i.e. we have power for about 75% of a given day. Our solar installations are therefore all hybrid with large battery storage (enough to survive at least 4.5h outage), so less of a concern here.
Damn didn’t realize SA had fallen apart so much.
Is that due to grid issues or has the demand risen too much to keep up?
@@reinoud6377 It's due to the relentless pursuit of equity.
@@reinoud6377 "Grid issues" yeah, thats a nice way of putting it.
@@mrb152"fallen apart"? When was it whole?
The efficiency of well-placed panels on a residential rooftop compared to panels on a giant farm that are better aimed (statically, or dynamically) comes out to only about 30%.
I feel that is more than made up for by the benefit of having the panels on wasted space, rather than land used for a solar farm only.
Also distribution costs can be much higher to get power from an out of town solar farm, than to get it from my roof to my hvac ststem in my house.
One solution I don't see enough of, is using actual wasted space instead of solar farming in a dedicated area: commercial rooftops (like atop a Walmart, mall, or other large commercial building) and parking lots. Look at the size of say, a Costco or Walmart parking lot, now cover the whole thing in solar panels, it's a win-win-win for everyone. The business that own the lots have an offset bill for producing energy to give back to the grid, more energy is being provided in a way that doesn't ruin land that could have been used for something else, and the customers and patrons of the lot now have covered parking in a lot that would normally be fully exposed to any and all weather.
But that will never get the mass adoption that it needs because when it comes to things pertaining to the environment, the government and big business aren't looking for solutions, they're looking for ways to push the burden onto the regular citizen/consumer.
Installing Solar on rooftops is preferred indeed as 99% of the infra is already there. You already have the grid connection, the mounting structure, a place to mount the inverter and a internet connection. Also at the current price of solar panels and mounting equipment it makes sense considering energy costs (here in europe at least). You're also only feeding what you don't use on-premise into the grid. Here in germany we use bidirectional energy meters which only count the sum of power over time (eg. if you feed 5kW on phase 1 and consume 3kW on phase 2 you net at 2kW feed into the grid eg. your loads are powered by your solar system and the excess makes you additional money)
@@KyleDavis328wait, are you suggesting that the parking lot itself be made of solar panels? good luck with that. engineering the panels to survive vehicle traffic kills all practicality. installation and maintenance would be extremely intensive and require specialized procedures, and a transparent material that's sufficiently resistant to high compressive load would be drastically more expensive.
if you're concerned with wasted space to parking lots, the solution comes from asking why more space is allocated than necessary, and what can be done on a political level to encourage more efficient land usage.
oops. I see you're suggesting covering the parking lot, then putting panels on top of the covering. I'd like to ask how you intend to keep the interior of the lot sufficiently lit
@@ZweiSpeedruns I don't think it would be a continuous roof, like a parking garage. More like a carport, where the lanes are still uncovered, and you park your car under the panels. I've seen such a structure that is hooked up to a charger for the car.
As a renter, my household uses a little bit of 'backyard solar', a small group of panels in the backyard combined with a home-made battery bank tied into some smart controls. In the hottest summer months we run AC units on battery+solar through the hottest time of the day and all the way to 'free nights' power pricing, when we switch things to grid power and also top the batteries back up. It is imperfect but it shaves down the killer peak time pricing and also provides a large enough backup to run lights&etc as needed for more than a day when the grid is down.
Thats pretty awesome. I wish building codes would update that require all new panels be of a smart type so you can integrate those kind of diy setups into the home more seamlessly
Same way 8bit guy did it?
And you heat your house and water with....
@@DrLoverLoversolar water heating, as we do in Australia. Convert IR to hot water, not light to electricity to hot water. We just solar panels for power and a couple of solar water pallets to hear a tank of hot water. Normally a cold tank can be heated to hot even in a dull day.
@@dadawoodslife had that in southern California in the 80's on a MCM rancher house
3 1/2 pipe reflectors focussed on a black tube in the middle would rotate to follow the sun arch through the sky
never had a lack of HOT water
heat was a propane pig tank and rear garden
In the UK, you can have a seperate export meter. So you effectively have consumption and generation as two seperate contracts with your utility. Depending on the tarrif you choose, the prices for both import and export can be variable, meaning energy companies can mange load through realtime pricing.
There are also a lot of people (like me) with un-metered generation, which has to be below a certain amount, and that just offsets my usage during the day.
We have a bunch of legacy deals in place too, which were deliberately insanely good terms to encourage early adopters. My boss at my old job was paid based on projected generation. His sysyem was un-metered, and if he used power from the panels, he would still be paid for it. He had a box to divert 100% of the excess solar power he generated to his electric water heater.
Similar deal in Australia. If I remember correctly Australia had upfront subsidies to install panels and then had separate consumption and generation rates, with the generation rate being much lower. This seems to help with the problems in the video in that it allows lower income people access, doesn't over-reward selling energy back into the grid at times when the grid really doesn't need it, and incentives sizing your installation such that the majority of the solar energy generated is used to power the house and not sold back to the grid.
US digital electric meters have the same capability. The discussion needs to separate the technology of rooftop solar, which is great, vs the rate structures that certain utilities use today.
It seems like this solution of putting generators on the wholesale rates would also encourage adding energy storage or time shifting energy usage to higher demand times
one early scheme had the main meter running backward, so the higher generation when cost high gives far lower bills. now
I must agree with your comment and the responses - it feels like Alec is getting his knickers in a twist about a specific application of solar incentives in one country whereas - as I understand it (I don't have solar) - in most of the world these issues don't exist / have been mitigated by "sensible" policies. It's like a globally valid technology is being rejected purely because of a local administrative cock-up.
I completely agree that the entire country needs to ban together to strengthen the electrical grid, instead of relying on individuals to generate their own power. The problem (as you point out) is that the authorities aren't taking responsibility, and instead consumers are hearing that it's their fault for not being "green."
That's always been the issue in America (and probably other places, but especially the US), the burden of saving the planet is pushed onto the ordinary citizen instead of being carried by the companies and governments that are the real causes of these issues. Citizens aren't the reason why we consume so much non-green energy, it's because that's what the energy producers are incentivized to use, be it through external incentives or the flow of the market, it's cheaper to not be green, so they're not going to be green. Then make us the consumer feel bad about it by blaming the planet's issues on plastic straws and grocery bags. (Living in California is hell).
But those points run contrary to each other. If consumers shouldn't bear the cost of going green, why should we pay the monopolies to maintain their status (i.e. not use private solar because it strains the grid)?
@@KyleDavis328 Well in that case its better to just build nuclear power plants which on a mass scale are far better for the environment then millions of Solar panels that require heavy mining, nasty dirty and polluting refining process whole Nuclear power generates steam, that is all just steam. Nuclear waste is very small quantity and can easily be burried deep underground like the new facility they built in Europe in Norway we need one here in the USA but the idiots nimbys complain.
@@KyleDavis328 Very accurate, the same situation with cars. "Buy an electric car to help save the planet." Car infrastructure is terrible for the planet, and greener alternatives exist but aren't used since companies and governments aren't putting money into them(such as for bikes and trains).
In the UK we pay a standing fee for a grid connection , even if we don’t use any electricity or gas. Around £250 a year. also i don’t feel sorry for the energy companies as they are making a disgusting amount of profit.
I think energy storage as a power buffer is more valuable for homes than local energy generation like solar, it's a way to ease peak demand on the grid and also provide emergency power. (I mean both would be cool but having power banks in homes connected to the grid is a lot less complicated than power generation)
Batteries can just be considered a whole-house UPS really
Keep in mind the lifespan of battery are a alot shorter than solar panels and it will degrade even without maximum usage, more of a function of time then just charging and discharging cycles.
My local power company sent out a survey about putting batteries in homes for a monthly fee to handle power outages. Wasn't worth it for me to have a $50CAD/month cost to help an approx once a year significant outage but it is interesting to see the planning to get more of this equipment distributed.
Here in Canada in my province the government won't allow batterie storage systems to be installed unless it's in a garage (attached or detached) or a detached structure. Most homes here do not have garages. People have gone to the trouble of installing solar at a battery system only to be told it won't pass inspection. A frustrating lack of communication.
@@dg-hughes i know it would be conspiratorial to suggest but I wonder why the Irvings would want that? In NS we just have to deal with Emera owning NS Power.
As an example of your neighborhood tapped out situation, I'm an electrician. We have a commercial area of a decent sized town, that there's a specific spot that is indeed tapped out, and they want to be provided larger easements by all property owners to upgrade the area, and there's a couple holdouts because of property that's owned by the same group, on both sides of said easement, and a bunch of complicated future plans. We as a group of contractors, worked to implement a system that allows things to run alternatively of each other, to work within our current limitations to the entire row of buildings. We have installed larger services to be prepared for the day the supply gets upgraded. Its a complex situation, but its a fascinating real world example of something for y'all in the comments.
I’m not sure how common this is, but I know labatts brewing in london Ontario Canada has a gas turbine generator(maybe 2) that i believe is there because they use more power than the grid is able to provide in that area. maybe it’s also used for peak shaving/back feeding as a peaker plant if/when needed.
I know that during power outages they can still run approx 1/3rd of operations (not sure if that’s the least power hungry 3rd or what)
Yeah it’s a 5MW Cogen plant
Did some more reading and they manage to use 0 grid power during peak demand summer days. Probably costs a lot to use power on those days anyway. I assume they could sell that power for a lot on those days too.
They don’t air condition most of the plant so that save a a lot of power
The problems you describe with inequity caused by transition to solar apply just as well to natural gas and heat pumps. As more homes transition to heat pumps and use less natural gas, the cost of maintaining the gas infrastructure gets borne by the remaining customers, who are likely the ones least able to afford a new heat pump (or the corresponding increase in gas prices). This is a significant problem that will require political will to solve.
I think its implied but I wanna emphasize that the problems outlined are very US specific. In Germany the grid costs are a flat fee you have to pay for the hook up, no matter if you use any energy at all.
The grid will also only buy your electricity at market rate which is FAR lower than what you pay, so that whole "you cost them something" is not the case here.
Still, Solar is massively worth it here because energy prices are so high, you currently have an installation paid off in less than 5 years from the savings.
I think what you need to do in the US is have grid maintenance be paid by taxes.
Having more people do Solar and Battery installations would help a lot with resilience of grids and I agree this needs to be a societal perspective, not an individualistic one which is unfortunately the norm in the US.
One point I think you might be missing here for the US case is that the costs of your electricity will not stay as low as they are right now. This is a problem that any nation currently reliying on fossils is going to fave eventually, we here see it just much sooner and it would be good of we were already further ahead, less load on the grid and less reliance on fossils would help us massively right now. So see it more as getting ready for more resilience and less highly centralized production which is more prone to catastrophic failure the more severe weather is going to be. As a global society we need to look more at resilience because the cost of failure in the future are going to eclipse the cost of power we pay right now, so even solutions that are more expensive right now are massively cheaper on a 10y+ outlook.
The idea of "we rent your rooftop" makes sense I think but its also useful if the logistics of installation are shared but yes ultimately it woule make sense if the solar panels are owned collectively and we pay less for it by having hardware and labor be sourced on a larger scale.
Fuel prices fell in 2010s as tech found some natural gas to use.. Tech will keep finding more. So it's maybe false to just say "energy will definitely get costlier soon ignore trend last 50 years ....... Europeans maybe should NOT lecture US, even before Ukraine power prices 300% US. Clearly Europe was doing almost everything wrong. I suspect solar in Germany is dumb and thru schemes they hide this so homeowners think solar makes sense, hence the 300%. US is dumb in different spheres just in energy we re smarter. . . Europe is overall similar to US, 80% there drive to work, 60% the same co2 per person, I'm not sure we have any "answer" to energy issues, it's all just fake answers. I d love real answer and then change my mind and applaud... I mean this with fun, we re all idiots not sure anyone is smart...
Same sort of system in the UK. You pay a standing charge per day before you import or export any energy. Didn't use to be the case but every tariff has that charge now. The result being an increase in what low energy users pay compared to the old two rate tariffs where you paid a higher unit price for a set amount of usage and then a lower amount afterward. But was still cheaper than the standing charge and one rate tariffs that are universal today.
The issue in the US when it comes to how we are billed has to do with how pricing is regulated. Private companies are generally allowed to either profit on the transmission of power or the generation of power. In California, my state he’s using as an example, the private utilities make money in transmitting power to us. Which is why it’s 75% of the cost. Other states regulate things differently, have more municipal utility districts/coops or are less corrupt. California is a mix of corrupt and has weird regulations.
@@thetrainhopper8992 But we have the same in Germany? The company that provides the power lines, is a different one than the one generating the power and (mostly) there is even a different company that then sells you the power.
Yet, this net-metering problem he talks about does not exist - it's simply illegal (you get a new metering device that cannot do it, it's that simple).
Re: Predatory Solar.
I have a personal experience with this. I very nearly got solar panels for my small house- about 700 square feet, so it's not a lot of area to work with, plus there's minor tree coverage. These people are commission salesmen, hoping to push you through fast enough you don't realize what you've actually done.
While solar panels "may cost about as much as a car", that's still a pretty big investment. Many homeowners still have a mortage and these installation costs (whether it's the actual cost or just them inflating it is unknown) easily hit 20-30k for me. They want to come to your house, "so they can look", but also so they can talk to you face to face, where it's harder for you to say no. They use language like "you'll own this much of your power" and tell you X person didn't pay anything on their power bill, while quietly saying you'll be getting a power rebate at a different time hoping you won't connect the dots as to why that person didn't pay anything on their bills. And at the end of the day, you stand a good chance of not generating enough power (unless you spring for a battery which easily adds 20k+ to your loan) to STILL be paying a power bill, except now you have a loan tied to you with interest.
The loan part is what snapped me out of it, because I was able to stop for a second and realize "woah, getting this loan for another 20 thousand to tie to me has been way too fast and easy, something isn't right." And it's not, because that loan is tied to you, not your house. If your house's increase in value doesn't match the loan you took, you're gonna be in the hook for that extra.
Everyone is commission based so they want to rush you through so they can get their couple thousand for being a salesman. Months later I still get these people poking and prodding to see if I'll bite.
To top it all off, the "incentive" offered by the govt is a tax break. Let's say I did get that stuff installed, I'd get X amount of money as incentive. When I go to pay my taxes, they'll take that much money off what I owe. Except, If you're like me, living the humble life, that amount is several times what I would owe in a year, so that incentive will spread itself over many tax years until its eventually depleted. Additionally, if I remember correctly, that incentive has wildly depleted each year from its inception and has just about turned off due to the time period it affected.
All of this makes it a big risk that only people who are relatively comfortable and likely have paid off their mortage can do without undue risk.
I got to the loan paperwork part of the discussion, said I’d like to review it over the weekend and I’d get back to them Monday. Over a quarter of the total loan amount was their origination fee! I can’t recall the exact numbers, but the solar system was ~$28k for 6 kW installed, and the total loan cost was nearly $38k!
They talk all those good numbers about “this is how much the panels cost”, and “here’s our low interest rates”, and “here’s your effective cost per kW” and roll the tax credit into a payment on the loan to further cook the numbers, and they don’t tell you at all about the ~35% loan origination fees.
Super, super skeezy
My solar installation was $30k all in, $20k out of pocket after the tax rebate. I have already paid that off and we have only had the system for 3 years. Some people can handle these types of purchases responsibly….
@@andykillsu How many kW is your system?
@@andykillsu Of course some people can.
Firstly- 'We have paid it off'
Thats a nice plurality you have there. For my case, I'm the only person in my household, thus, single income.
Secondly, speaking of income, what's yours? Feel free to generalize...I'll tell you, I work in a factory. It's good for the area, but its not enough.
For sure, if I didn't have a car payment, I could take on a loan of that size, but I do, plus house, utilities and all the etc.
Yea I got suckered into the loan they offered which turned out to compound daily.
But there are ways around that. Personally if you can get a home equity line of credit and use that to cover the install price then not only do you get the tax credit on the install but you can deduct the interest you pay on the line of credit on your taxes.
Also if you are handy you may be able to do the install yourself with some friends and just pay an electrician to do the final connection. You already have the quote and panel location from the first company which should give you a shopping list.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate the level of nuance here. A feast for thought.
I think the solution to this is relatively simple, and it is quite common in Europe - we are billed for the distribution and generation and per/kWh. The cost of distribution (per/kWh) is determined by your address and is regulated, while the generation portion can be whatever, even negative, depending on your contract. If I sell my solar to the grid, I can only get the generation portion credited (and we don't have net-metering at all, mostly). If you are on a time-of-use plan (which you probably would be, if you have solar on your roof), the buyout price at noon is peanuts. This puts an incentive on the home owner to adjust their usage to correspond with their generation, and to maximize self-use as well as add some moderate battery storage to cover the night. This is arguably something we should all be doing - fixed-rate electricity is REALLY bad for renewable adoption...
Why would you put solar on roof tops panels are inefficient solar hot watter and heating are the first step
You get paided in cash or I disconnected from the grid, they paid me in cash
Oh it's easy, just turn off the switch and discount the wired from the box to your home😊
Funnily, regulation solves this "free market" issue... If my utility tells me they pay x Cents per kWh on the market, there is no reason why I shouldn't be eligible to get the same rate for my production. The grid cost is put on top anyway.
Fixed rate would actually be very good as you could sell your power to the average daily price instead of the instant price. But power companies aren't stupid so they don't let you sell using that.
Here in Spain, you get paid a fixed price per kWh you send back to the grid (usually lower than what you pay if you need power from the grid). Companies compete giving more or less but it's pretty stable.
Our bills also have the distribution and maintaince costs as separate items, so even if your energy bill is 0, you are still paying those things
I don't know how it works in Spain, but here in Germany I could just cancel electricity.
There are 2 main ways that can go:
1) they actually send someone to cut the connection physically
2) you get billed a "very generous"(basically a fine) amount per kw/h if you still use it
1) is probably the most likely as 2) would be too hard too enforce in most places. But I don't know anyone personally who did this and the only cases I heard of where people who just did not pay for an extended period of time so they got their power cut. But that's hear/say. Like I said, I don't know anyone like that personally.
But 1) is definitely officially on the table. That's one way to operate solar without any registration requirements. That's why it's becoming more relevant recently.
Same here in Australia, different rates apply to supply from demand and a fixed connection charge applies. That said excess generation can reduce or eliminate that connection charge, because that is electricity the grid doesn't need to generate and has significantly less transmition cost because of locality of supply.
@@benjaminfranklin329That is the way it should work. On average, if you produce 100kw/h excess than what you actually use, that excess should go toward connection/maintenance cost.
Where things get "thorny" is the govt/power co being greedy.
@@benjaminfranklin329 that is my take the "grid" must "buy" the power from somewhere and it is UNLIKELY that enough LOCAL generation (correct rates) would out do the TOTAL demand of the grid and local generation is LESS running through the transformers and sub stations ETC so IF the "energy" rates themselves are fair then there should NOT be a case your neighbours are "paying" your way
but I suspect a LOT of American utilities DO NOT separate power from delivery so a NET rate system WOULD "over pay" for power generation on feed back solar
"Here in Spain" yeah it works that way in most of the US, too, Alec just made some big assumptions that are mostly incorrect in this video.
The only inequity is the power companies getting massive profits and blaming renewables for price increases
Like your videos. I converted natural gas energy pricing to kWh for electrical heating comparison. Electricity is more expensive however, heatpumps have thermal gain. Turns out above 5C my mini split is less expensive than natural gas heating. In the Pacific Northwest, many winter afternoons are above 5C, which has shifted half of my natural gas heating to electricity. A modest 12,000BTU heatpump is doing half the yearly heating of a 40,000BTU gas furnace.
Cheers -Peter
This would never have occurred to me in a gazillion years. I love that you're thinking in these terms and it keeps me coming back for more.
Here(Parts of Australia) it's something like 5c kWh to export and 25c kWh to import.
I think it should be closer to 10c export as that matches wholesale power prices, but it still really insetaives you to use the power you generate as much as you can as that saves you the most money, taking as much load off the grid as you can.
Seems to work. (And the power companies re-sell the exported power at a HIGHER fee as it's 'green energy' and other people want that.)
And this works good in Australia where your peak demand is probably daytime AC. Or even daytime heating like I saw in temperate areas like Geelong in the winter. But here in western Canada, peak demand is flatter. We still have the duck curve, but demand holds steady over night in the winter when heating demands kick in. Solar doesn't match out use patterns at all. Wind is better, but we had a few days this winter when wind was a net draw on the grid, using more power to de ice blades than was produced. My grid operator barely allows grid tie.
Massachusetts USA here, I have a 5.1kWh system and during the day when we are not home I get $0.21 /kWh for export and I pay $0.23 /kWh when I use the grid. but even on months when i make more than I use I still have a $12 bill as all the customer fees (lines, poles, services) do not count towards my export income. so I still pay my share for the gird but not the actual power i use
At one point the US Government sponsored a competition among universities to design and build the most energy efficient homes. The finalists set up their homes on the Mall in DC and the general public was allowed to tour them. I remember one house with PV cells that stored excess energy in a bank of boat batteries. (That’s when I first heard about batteries having a cycling limit.)
That's why the new Lithium iron phosphate batteries are such a game changer- they have 6000-8000 cycles before dropping to 80% capacity, which means that 20-30y lifetimes for battery banks are now possible.
It’s called the solar decathlon and is still going on, easy to look up
@@avoirdupois1 Lithium-iron phosphate batteries?
Interesting. Gonna have to look that up.
One novel approach was used by The 8-Bit Guy, who did a video about his solar panel install. His house is still on the grid, but his solar panels aren't - he can switch parts of his house into it when they're active, which means that he can offset costs in a more direct way. It's a great solution for his situation, I kind of wish I could do it for my house because I'm also in a hot climate that isn't prepared for a deep freeze of that type. But it's a lot of engineering effort, and I don't think it would scale well as a societal solution.
yep if you have the skills and resources you have an advantage
The problem with that is that you generally don't need power at the time when you're generating it - unless it's for A/C. You only need one, maybe two panels to run your house during the day if you're out at work.
@@robinbennett5994 charging an EV car and charging BATTERIES / WATER TANK
EEV blog has swapped into a heatpump water tank and an EV car and is "on grid" but there rates are "bad" and he sets his demand loads to come on during solar max output
he has a few vids on it
@@robinbennett5994 the system mentioned charges one of those large camping batteries
@@robinbennett5994 : The trick, then, is to have your solar-panel-driven air conditioner turn on a couple hours BEFORE you come home from work. Then it won't have to kick into high gear to cool your house when you get home.
Man, this video really resonated with me. I worked in the solar industry down in Hawai'i, where the duck curve problem was so bad it dubbed the Nessie curve. But you're absolutely right: while those who advocate for solar are well-intentioned, externalizing grid operation costs to people without solar -- who tend to be less well off -- is icky. Disconnecting from the grid is no better either; the grid is a beautiful machine that works best when we work together as a species.
One of the main issues is the paradigm utility companies operate under. Utility companies don't operate so that we can have access to electricity, they're a business that needs to sell electricity. But we can absolutely challenge this paradigm; utility co-operatives are already doing some pretty cool stuff. Over on Kaua'i, the KIUC has invested heavily in renewable energy, to the point where pretty much all electricity produced during the daytime is renewable. They've also made some pretty substantial investments in energy storage. Perhaps this model of community ownership can provide an equitable way to aid the transition from fossil fuels
Oh yea we're doing a swimming job of working together as a species, we continually allow people to rot in poverty while showering people who already have too much money with more money and ways to not give their money to anyone.
It is interesting that you mention the problems with individual, private energy production as I feel like a big incentive for the installation of rooftop solar is the growing costs and price hikes caused by private ownership of utilities by companies such as Eversource which in turn causes energy production to be focused on short-term profits over providing a public service.
As much as I hate monopolies, it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in and provide maintenance and operation of the electric grid, since it is a matter of national security.
@@kentslocum except that the grid isn’t owned and operated by the government, it’s run by private companies with local monopolies such as Eversource in New England who’s infamous for overcharging electric bills and utilities since they run for profit and have no competition.
@@fredrickfraser1659 I guess I should have been clearer--I meant that it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in, because the grid is currently a bit of a mess.
@@kentslocum I think the confusion is with how you started "As much as I hate monopolies" wouldn't really apply here, as the monopolies are already here, the government stepping in would be creating a new monopoly, it'd be socializing electricity. It would have made more sense to express it the way I personally feel:
As much as I hate socialization, it makes a lot of sense for the government to step in and provide maintenance and operation of the electric grid.
And to that, as much as I hate socialization, there are a lot of currently privatized industries that are a lot worse off than if they were socialized. Besides electricity and other energy utilities, waste is something I think would benefit a lot from socialization. I've lived in places where there's a local waste monopoly (specifically WM) as well as places where there's a thriving market of competition in the waste sector (at least half a dozen major players in the town if not more), and they're both awful as a consumer. The local monopolies charge whatever they want and you just have to bend over and take it, and having to navigate a town while 6 or more sets of garbage trucks (before accounting for separated recycling, and any other separated waste that's offered) are all trying to find which bins are theirs to collect on their pickup day is an absolute nightmare. As a staunch proponent of free market capitalism, I very much hate privatized waste management.
@@KyleDavis328 If the US government runs the grid, I wouldn't call it socialized. The US government is itself run as a business. A racket for military spending to improve profits in the military-industrial complex => the value surplus generated by an efficient grid will be diverted to this purpose. After the US government is overthrown and a "social government" is put in its place, your remark applies.
Modern top-of-the-line heat pumps are pretty amazing. Mitsubishi Kazan Extreme series has SCOP of above 5 and they get diminishing returns all the way down to -31F. They're designed for places like Finland and Sweden. At 0F they're still producing tons of net heat.
is that part of the "Mr Slim" mini-split types of unit
I am looking at a MITS Mr Slim heat pump with "super heat" because they CAN still heat pump heat at -35C
That's great, but what happens when the temperature drops below -40 C?
@@surferdude4487 such places are very few, if that's a possible risk in your non-urban area then you should think about a backup heating source.
Also ground loop heat pumps -- ground after two-three meters deep is about the same temperature throughout the year, so no reliance on air temperature
See you in 10 years when I can afford a used one.
@@niter43 Places where the winter temperatures drop below -40 C are quite common in Canada. I do recall, from about 20 years ago, that a friend of mine was installing heat pumps and they used underground loops. But nobody ever told me about what happens when that small volume in contact with that loop also freezes. I can't see this as a long- term solution unless that loop is in contact with the ground water. Then you have to deal with what happens if the stuff in that loop ever leaks into the ground water. As for back-up heat sources? If I have to use a back-up heat source that can keep me warm when it's too cold for a heat pump, then why even bother with the heat pump? I still have to maintain a gas furnace and pay the fees to keep gas hooked up whether I use it or not.
I have heard of hibrid systems that heat up the cold side of the system when it is too cold for a heat-pump alone to do the job. This is likely the best solution for extreme cold.
Great discussion. I work for a utility on electric service upgrades and I wanted to add the additional problem that when you make an application for a larger service, it can take a very long time to get permission to upgrade in situations where the utility's secondary circuits or transformer are overdue for an upgrade. I see this happen a lot in neighborhoods that are just the right age for folks who are thinking of replacing their appliances and electrifying. You will wait months for the utility to make the upgrades even if the overload has nothing to do with your added load. You didn't want a video about the electric grid, but this is one situation where people's personal decisions to electrify and the utility's decisions to defer upgrades can butt into each other.
I appreciate your desire to Do The Right Thing on cooperatively taking care of our shared asset: the grid. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, which has demonstrated that the powers-that-be don't have the same values you and I do: their criminal neglect of the grid has lead to multiple deaths - it's beyond ridiculous that people would freeze to death in this country because the power grid is down. Everyone I know who has any resources at all owns one or more gas (or natural gas) powered generators, in self defense for the horrible state of the grid here. And I'm not out in the sticks somewhere: I'm in the middle of the largest urban area in the state, but still experience at least 1 multi-day outage every year. In this environment, having rooftop solar and personal battery backup is the only sane response, unless and until we can change the people in charge.
After watching probably a hundred of your videos, I want to make a big compliment for choosing interesting topics (recent and historical ones), for the sympathetic presentation style and your type of humor. Keep it up!
Of course, being an European engineer I do not share your views on every detail, but this doesn’t matter at all.👍🏻
In Sweden, we have a system where you pay separately for your grid access and energy usage. I am pretty sure that if you add solar panels to your rough you become a so-called "micro producer" which means you have flexible rates, and then you pay/get paid the total usage * current cost. This way you are incentivised to add storage and to use your own stored energy when the prices go up.
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we had something like that, until the Hydro company shut the program down
Coming here to say the exact same thing. In Belgium we are evolving to a electricity price system, where you pay more for the electricity you get from the grid, then what you get for injecting into the grid. That way, you pay for using the grid. Also peak usage will be part of the equation and spot prices per 15 minutes will be thrown into the mix. All to give incentives to people who stabilise the grid and discourage others who put high stress on it.
I'm not sure if it's the same in Sweden as in Finland. In Finland there are three charges for domestic grid power: fixed monthly fee (few euros), energy usage (either spot price or contracted price), and fixed per kWh transfer price. So paying for energy production and transfer are split. If you have rooftop solar I believe the standard contract is you are paid at the current spot price for production, but it's not the same as net metering because you are not also paid the transfer/grid infrastructure price.
@@andys844 Yes correct. Recently installed panels. My EXCESS production will go to the grid and I get paid the hourly spot price, Elec.company takes a very small marginal fee per KWh. Transfer price is not added or reduced from that. If the Spot electricity price is HIGH (and for example decreases a lot for the next night), it tends to be smarter move to cut my own use and sell it to grid for "better price". If the spot price is low, it is wise trying to use Your own production for example in water heating, so you basically "save" the transfer fee using your own electricity.
No, it will not pay for itself fast.
...and as it seems, there will be so much new energy production here, that overall average yearly electricity price will be pretty low. -> even slower payback.
I like the idea on principle of separating grid access from energy usage. However, once scenario that does need to be thought through if you do it is EV charging providers (and I'm referring to public fast chargers here, not slow home chargers). The consume huge quantities of power when a car is charging, but nothing when a car isn't. If they have to pay very high grid access fees for their big connection, this makes it impossible for a charger that is only used a few times per day to turn a profit. This is a big problem because the chargers that only get used a few times a day tend to occur in rural areas, far from any other chargers, and it would be very bad for the EV community for these chargers to go bankrupt, even if they aren't used all that often.
One solution that charging companies are starting to do for this type of situation is install stationary batteries at the charging site. This way, they can slowly charge the batteries from the grid using a relatively slow and cheap grid connection and fast-charge the cars from the batteries at a speed that is not limited by the grid connection. The catch, of course (besides the cost of the batteries) is that if the charger becomes too popular for its own good, the batteries will quickly become depleted, leaving the rest of the customers stuck charging at the rate of the slow grid connection.
10:36 - this point about "buying your way out of grid costs" is not actually true in a lot of cases. You underestimate the cost to install solar and batteries and overestimate the savings.
The duck curve is why your friend's 'time of use plan' exists.
I never thought of solar causing grid maintenance issues. This is a really interesting idea that I'll have to think about more.
BTW my bill cannot go below $13 because of grid cost and anything I generate beyond my usage on a yearly basis gets donated to the low income fund to keep power bills low/non existent for people who cannot afford to pay their bills (especially during winter months)
Yeah I didn't really get that bit of criticism. Having solar on your roof is better than not, but if the utility company can disincentivize you from using that energy when demand is high and instead sell it to them it is better for the grid from an emissions perspective.
I think that what Alec is seeing is that they're incentivizing based on current production trends (fairly consistent production, with lower use overnight), while the solar produces a different curve. With more solar, it makes sense to incentivize using electricity in the middle of the day, because that's where it produces the most.
Edit: Incentivizing based on current production likely makes the most sense, but Alec may be overlooking the fact that current production is largely unaffected by solar production.
In the Netherlands, the current situation is called "salderen" (which can be translated as one-for-one): your energy price is determined per year and you can subtract the kWh that you feed back to the network from your usage. That is no longer possible after 2025 as people without solar panels subsidize people with solar panels.
We're starting to move towards energy pricing by time of use, usually per 15 minutes. That means that if you generate with solar during a sunny day, your revenue will be low, while when you use during the peak hour, your price will be high. Generally this will not offer an advantage or disadvantage for people who don't generate, but if you're smart about your timing, you can make significant savings.
@@IIVQ I also have a time of use plan available as an option. It's a good option for night shift workers who tend to be at work during peak time, but difficult to make work for most families.
My son lives near LA. He had his roof replaced due to its age. But, he went one step further and had the shingles replaced with those made by Tesla. The shingles convert sunlight into power. That power then feeds two Tesla wall batteries during the day. The batteries then charge his two electric cars (Chevy Bolt and a Tesla Model S). So, the way I see it, both of his cars literally run on sunlight. Also, when his neighborhood goes dark due to a power failure, his home continues running normally as if the power failure never happened.
The drawback is that a tesla solar roof is crazy expensive, the batteries are fairly expensive as well. It will take him 30+ years to make up the cost, however the roof and batteries will need to be replaced in 20ish years, so he will always be in the hole economically.
@TreborsTacticslol yeah sounds easy when rich
@@soangry get used to having to pay for what you need, you know, like a car.
I live in a newer house in a subdivision. Over the last few years, we’ve been having lots and lots of fly by night solar companies wanting to install rooftop solar. They go door to door selling it which is the worst. I reluctantly talked to a couple of them, and they basically refused to disclose the cost of them. They would go on and on about building equity in my house, and I only owe them what I save through solar. But I never could get a straight answer on cost. For the last company that came by, I pretended to be super interested in it just because I wanted to see how exactly this worked. After like five separate meetings and they we wanting me to sign the contract did I finally discover what I was getting. Basically it was a fourteen year loan at 8% interest AND they were greatly overcharging on the actual cost of parts and labor. The whole thing just felt like a scam. Oh, and every time I would mention that I needed to run it by my wife, the guy would be like, “aren’t you the man of the house? Don’t you make all the decisions?” I feel like all of these places were scams.
All of the door to door solar sellers are scams. Frankly all of the door to door anythings are scams (or at least bad deals).
Particularly the solar salesmen are trying to get an easy sale because of how ludicrously high energy costs are and how good incentives can be. I know that around here, even with 8% and 14 years, solar would *still* easily pay off compared to the bonkers electricity rates we pay.
If you're actually interested in solar, though, find your own installer instead of letting one come to your door.
@@UnreasonableSteve I don't remember how I found the solar contractor I used, but the prices for panels and labor were about what I expected from what I read, and I did not finance it. I used a home equity line of credit, which is about 4% interest rate.
If I did all the details myself, I might have found a cheaper electrician. But, that was a small part of the total for a ten kilowatt system.
A grid-tied installation that also has storage could use an ATS (automatic transfer switch). They are normally used in something like a data center to ensure that in a grid power outage, it automatically fires up the onsite generators. By replacing the generator with batteries, it could possibly solve the issue of grid feed back to keep workers safe.
A lot of the whole home backup systems do have transfer switches as part of the package, and many will also work with generators.
The existing battery systems include transfer switches. There are also grid tied solar systems that are smart enough to disconnect themselves from the grid and keep the panels active until power from the grid is restored, at which point they reconnect to the grid. I know Enphase has a system that accomplishes this without a battery system.
Yes that's correct as I understand it.
If you have storage you can do this and run off grid in an outage. If you don't have storage you don't have anywhere to dump excess power so you need to shut the system down.
@@mrgilbe1 That can be avoided if the inverter is smart enough: solar panel output can be curtailed in milliseconds. If the inverter can measure the real-time energy use of the house, it can match that by briefly turning off the solar panels for a fraction of the AC waveform. But the vast majority of inverters don't have this capability, which is a shame.
In fact, after having Tesla Powerwalls installed at my house, I found that although the system can run off-grid, it's far from ideal. When off-grid, if the battery is full and the solar panels over-produce, the battery inverter shifts the frequency out-of-spec, causing the solar inverters to shut down, running the loads entirely from battery. Once the battery level drops below 80%, the frequency is restored, and the solar inverters (eventually) turn back on again to charge the battery. This wastes 20+% of the battery capacity, and reduces peak power capacity.
There are also devices like Outback Power's Mojave that can measure your grid push/pull and zero it out or backfeed at valued times.
I got solar in my house in Australia a few years ago. It's been awesome but the feed in tarrif is so bad now. It was very easy to get it here but my house was only built like 10 years ago. It was a perfect 32°c autumn day today and I generated 47.5 kWh with an 8 .58 kW array.
As more people are doing something, it will become less economically beneficial. That's just basic supply and demand. If your tariff varies through the day, maybe you should do the math on adding storage to your system.
In my subdivision, all houses had 100A underground service, but they pulled 200A Aluminum cables to all houses, so it was just the wires from the meter to the panel which had to be upgraded, which was 4' in my case. I would not be surprised if this was done in more places with underground service.
Same in Atlanta GA.
I believe underground did NOT really become a thing till the 80's and I assume they would pre run for 200A much like they pull extra fibre OR network when they are running them
(look up "dark fibre" buried fibre cables un assigned and leasable)
I think most of your concerns about the grid can be solved by adjusting the incentives. In most countries in Europe that Ive heard of it is usually set up like this:
- The costs for the grid and the electricity are separated on your bill, and the grid costs are mostly fixed and not based on usage.
- If you have solar, it doesn't use net metering in the sense that the counter is running backwards, but instead uses two separate counters. Any electricity that you supply to the grid you get paid for by a much lower rate than the one you pay for consumed energy. This automatically incentivizes you to use most of your solar energy yourself at the time it is produced (as this reduces the amount you pay full price for). This reduces the problems with the evening spike right after solar stops, as households with solar might be more inclined to run their dryers or charge their cars during the day when solar is active. It can also be an incentive to invest in a battery system as this allows you to live mostly independent from the grid, using your own energy as much as possible, while still being connected and paying for the grid.
- I think there were some ideas by grid providers to allow people to link their private batteries up to the grid and set a percentage that the grid provider is allowed to draw from it during short peak times, but i cant find the sources on that anymore.
Yeah I think that’s how it works in the UK too (though I don’t have solar panels). The government also used to offer grants to help with the cost of the installation. I don’t really understand what he’s describing as the issue, but it doesn’t seem to be an issue in how it runs as you’ve described.
In general this seems like a more sensible approach than the US system but there's one thing that confuses me. To me, a fixed fee for connecting to the grid doesn't make sense... because the more electricity you use, the costlier the infrastructure is. Now of course if just one person uses more power, we're mostly talking about the wiring from the house to the street. But comparing, say, a neighborhood of single-family houses to a neighborhood of apartment buildings, not only the infrastructure from the building to the street, but also upstream infrastructure will have to be able to handle more power and thus more costly.
@@moi01887 What you're missing is that houses all have approximately the same size connection. You will pay a lot more for an industrial sized grid connection. Big consumers (like factories) can save a lot of money if they can smooth out their demand and limit themselves to a smaller connection.
Also, it makes no difference to the network operator if you regularly use all of your 100amp connection or not. What they care about is that you *could* use it, and so they have to provide for it.
@@moi01887 The thing is that the cots of the grid is not tied to the amount of electricity you use, it's tied to having reliability (24x7 service) and demand response (the ability to demand up to 200A of power, at no notice). Whether you use your circuit at 25% load or 40% load makes zero impact on the cost of that infrastructure. As such, the cost of connection should be scaled to the amount of power you *can* demand. Generation scales with usage, but distribution largely doesn't. In the commercial space, they pay a demand charge proportional to the highest amount of current they demand over a month, but that would be hard to parse in residential, and would cause surprise bills, so it's not done.
Note that in most places, your water bill is already billed this way (large fixed charge, smaller consumption charges), so it's not unheard of. It can be somewhat regressive, but we can solve that via other existing programs that target low-income households.
@@robinbennett5994 exactly. Those cost increases which are flat are covered in the flat cost, and those which are more directly dependent on usage, are instead covered in your per unit fee.
wow this video is absolutely excellent - I appreciate the very nuanced look at how the dynamics of rooftop solar play out, and I'll definitely find myself thinking about that. Right now we're leaning toward rooftop solar plus an electric car with a V2H setup to use as a storage battery, but I might have to look into it a bit more closely first…
Unless you think spending all that money will be offset by just feeling good - for ten years - forget about that. Any electricity you produce by solar will mix into the grid, and you will be charging your EV burning natural gas at 30-40% efficiency from a remote power plant, as was excellently pointed out in this video.
Here in Denmark we got rid of the metering setup for solar panels. Instead some electricity providers will offer to buy your over production at the market rate. This seems to work pretty well, you earn a bit if money off the power you cant use, but you are still incentivized to use as much of your production as possible because you have to pay tax on top of the market rate for grid power.
Still - getting a battery makes more sense than selling it back, imo.
Even if you don't have solar, a battery could pay for it self, just by using the flexrate for power and charging battery and using grid at night and when its super cheap, and using batery when its expensive.
I may have some of the details wrong, or the salesman was outright lying, but the information I got was that in my state, if you got solar panels you could either feed back to the grid for credit off of your billing (but never make profit) OR you could have a home battery storage system, but then your solar was not permitted to feed to the grid.
@@MonkeyJedi99 it WOLD NOT feed the grid with batteries as YOU ARE CHARGING your batteries to discharge them once the sun sets
they would also have issues if your solar AND battery dumped INTO the grid
Manitoba all but does NOT ALLOW batteries for that reason / and building codes
@@Krydolph that system still incentivises batteries since using your own power would be worth more. Then “overspill” on the batteries can still be sold. This also allows for people to get at least some money off their bills from solar, before they get batteries installed later
@@kaitlyn__L Exactly right, i have a battery setup, but during the spring and summer months it very quickly gets fully charged and then my remaining overproduction goes onto the grid.
One thing that helps is that there are less demand on high voltage long distance wires if solar panels are providing local energy, so its not quite as bad as 75% maintenance costs going unpaid. I also think we are a long way from there being enough solar panels that maintenance isnt being paid (the 25% that covers cost of generation also covers the cost of paying for private solar generation)
Glad to finally see someone talk about the Magic Kingdom issues of the current incentive structure for rooftop solar.
75% of the power bill being non-generation costs makes me wonder what's going on with grid construction and maintenance that makes it such a big piece of the bill? Like, if we've got the generation capacity part down well enough that it's only 1/4th of what people pay for the power, what are the big chunks costing so much for the distribution part that can be tackled to lower that majority cost?
The biggest cost is probably labor, and most companies run pretty lean on labor as is. Chances are there isn't much room for added efficiency there.
Everyone is paying for said labor, yet you barely see anyone from the utility around.
First time I've heard an argument against rooftop solar that stopped me to think if it is really a great thing. That's good! I think a video on 'Rooftop Solar Done Right' could be very interesting.
Look at Project Solar. Most solar companies are paying a commission to salespeople that conveniently amounts to the tax rebate rate, so that incentive you're getting is actually just covering the cost of the salesperson you're dealing with.
Rooftop solar should run at $1.85 or so a Watt. Instead, places are charging closer to $6/Watt because no one knows how much solar *should* cost and the tax incentives and finance programs obscure the true cost enough that people aren't paying attention to where all the money goes. Add in that solar finance companies are charging double-digit origination fees compared to the typical mortgage at 1 point origination and it's easy to see where all the actual cost is going.
Project solar doesn't have salespeople and they also have a DIY option so you can get real savings into what the system should actually cost. With what Alec mentioned about the issues of damage to a roof from the solar install is a very very common issue. The pay structure for the crew incentivizes them to slap it on as fast as possible and move on, with no penalty for damage they cause. My recommendation would be to find a roofing company who's willing to assist in at least installing the mounting brackets for you since they know how to handle making sure it doesn't leak, and then either they or you install the actual panels on the brackets. Then all you need to do is hire an electrician at normal rates to connect it to your panel.
I was just thinking that local community solar projects would be a cool idea and consolidate the cost/liability, if it only ever got popular of course. We'll see how it goes though
The other problem is that rooftop solar is more expensive to install than large solar farms between the design and electrical changes.
The concept of "Cost Shifting" is a myth perpetuated by the power companies. Every KWH I push to the grid goes directly to my next-door neighbors and is one less that has to be pushed from the plant over the grid. That is less strain on the grid and has near zero loss, whereas there is about a 5% transmission loss (about $6 billion annually in the US) from the plant to local production, which makes up for the "loss" of my share of grid upkeep fees. It's a complicated subject, and the big producers don't like competition.
@@ericapelz260 That's only true when 10% or less people have solar. When it's 50%, strange things happen to frequency regulation, and power has to leave your transformer to find a place in a power deficit. On top of that, unless you are not grid tied, how do you pay for your part of the grid when you use it. That topic is more complicated when the grid and generation are owned by different companies.
Agreed that a societal approach is required - and I say that as a rooftop solar customer. (Who also pays PG&E a WHOLE LOT of money every year - partly because I still have gas everything, partly because there's quite a bit of grid maintenance charge built in to what we're paying). The utilities are WAY too privatized - and are incentivized to skimp on the maintenance that keeps their piece of the grid from burning down large swathes of the West every year.
Thanks for shining your light onto these issues; I find I agree with about 95% of everything you say - which is pretty remarkable to me ;)
Following up to myself, I also really like how much the residential rooftop solar incentives have jump-started technology research and the productization of previous research; I do think it's about time to sunset many of the incentives, and also be smarter about what behavior we incentivize...
Our government literally subsidises a solid chunk of solar panels here in Australia. In Western Australia where I live both our retailer and grid operator are state owned. Honestly? I wouldn't have it any other way.
Thank you for this video! I was really into the idea of off-gridding a while ago, mostly because I was really interested in self-sufficiency for economic reasons, but also because I saw it as a way to be more eco-friendly when the grid is powered by fossil fuels. But as I read more about e-waste and resource limitations on the ability to have everything run on renewable energy at our current energy consumption levels, I realized that off-gridding contributes to the problem because it takes you out of an economy of scale.
I haven't found many people talking about that, or anyone at all approaching it from an economic justice angle. It's reassuring to see someone who holds similar values talking about this, even if all that can be said right now on this particular topic boils down to "it's complicated and there isn't a good solution".
Those loans on the solar installation are very complicated, and I’d also recommend caution. I think it was a good thing for me, because a replacement roof, new panel, and an upgraded grid connection was all part of the installation. I do also agree about your point that a battery pack makes it all work correctly 😅 so, going all the way is still terrifyingly expensive
Yea those loans are pretty much bigger/longer versions of what the used car dealers used.
Mine's interest compounded daily and thankfully after I got my tax return I was able to transfer the remaining balance to a home equity line of credit that wasn't big enough for the full install price.
a HELOC is a good option for this sort of install cuz not only do you get the tax credit from the install but you get to claim the interest on your taxes.
@@The_Lone_Aesir Very good point. Mine is tied in with my utility bills, and manageable for now. But, the amortization schedule is very aggressive, with bills already going up. I might have to use some of the HELOC for amortization going forward. Thanks for sharing
@@The_Lone_Aesir My system was installed 4 years ago, but we only bought the house last year. The unfortunate part is that it is a Power Purchase Agreement. At no point will we ever own the system because the contract -- which we never signed -- stipulates that 1) we are purchasing the solar that the panels produce at a reasonable rate of $.21/kwh, 2) We can purchase the system at the 6 year mark for the greater of the assessed value OR the total of the balance of the contract. This means that at year 6 my balance is in the range of $20k
Talk about used car dealer contract.
@@eugsmiley How long would that take for the whole balance?
@@Kraus- If you are referring to the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) it is a 20 year agreement starting at $.19/kWh with an annual escalation of 2.9%. By year 20 I estimate we will be paying $.33/kWh and the estimated total cost of all power generated/purchased will be about $30k.
My lowest Southern California Edison Time of Use rate is currently $.25/kWh. When NEM3.0 kicks in I'll be getting paid $.19/kWh for exporting. To install a recommended battery listed on the SCE site will cost $10,000. I can DIY an EG4 battery system for $1500 plus the cost of an electrician.
At the end of the term we must choose to renew, to pay the assessed value of the system, or to remove the panels.
It might be worth mentioning, having a second power source can be a life saver, literally. In the northeast, I've been through several instances where the gas stove saved our lives by heating the house when power is lost. Solar panels may mitigate this if the sun shines, but it could easily be several days during a storm when the sun doesn't appear. So when electric is lost, everyone should have some kind of backup.
Battery storage!
That would be one big battery to cover several days. It would cost a huge amount and would suit idle most days. Better bet would be a generator. Not that environmental but you may only use it once every 5 years or less
@@leskennedy that costs insanely high for an amount needed to keep house warm for couple of days…
Oh, and don't forget about snow and ice blocking the solar panels! Can you imagine having to shovel the roof?
Currently, in cold climates, they count on a snow-covered roof to provide insulation.
Wood stove, or Crisco-powered radiant heater.
From a country like australia that has clear peak and off-peak cost structures; a net metering arrangement sounds like the utilities get completely shafted in the US. We have smart meters that measure exports and tarriff them accordingly based upon agreed rates, eg, 30c per k/w with Ausgrid (Sydney/central coast) during peak periods (2-8pm)
Grid issues are the biggest impedance for me for rooftop PV. Currently, in my location in Australia, there are heaps of predatory installers, it's actually really hard to read the contracts but it appears to be a loan structure that will probably be financially harmful to the "customer". They have almost completely removed the net metering options that came up originally. The generation:maintenance cost of an electricity bill now makes so much sense.
I read the small print on my PV loans here in the US. It was predatory. It consisted of two 0% loans. A 12 month lump sum loan (for the portion that was expected as a federal solar incentive tax rebate), and a 5 year loan for the remaining. If the customer paid on time? 0% interest. Pay late? 20% retroactive penalty. I'm making sure I pay ahead of time.
predatory installers if you go with any large marketing company (hello facebook ads showing a cricketer). the private electrical contractor doing residential solar is rare, the good ones end up doing commercial rooftop PV systems.
Interesting hearing this from an American perspective. So you pay for electricity only per kWh?
Here in the Netherlands, there is a split between the electricity network operator and the company 'generating' the electricity.
You pay the network operator a fixed price based on the size of the connection to your home/business (number of amps). Then you pay the electricity provider based on the number of kWh you use. Also, this variable part of the bill is heavily taxed (for consumers, not companies) to incentivize lower consumption.
For solar panels there is a net-metering scheme here also, but only over the electricity generation part of the bill, not the network operator part.
'Smart'-meters are required here, so that means the meters will account for much much you take from the grid, and how much you deliver back. The price you pay for taking energy from the grid is much higher than giving it back (partly because of the tax). From a financial perspective then, it incentivizes you to use your own power as much as possible.
Like everything else in the US..."it depends." It depends on who your utility is, which state you live in, and what rate plan you are on. Most utilities charge a flat fee monthly for the connection, and then a $/kWh rate that might be flat, might change by season, or might change by Time Of Use. Other plans charge you a tiered rate where total usage is unmetered, but you get billed based on your highest utilization for the billing cycle (for example: you pay the 5-7 kWh rate for the month if your highest peak usage hour during the month required 6.8 kW that hour).
In most cases, the rates have a breakdown between production charges, transmission charges, and distribution charges...but in most of the US, the transmission and distribution is handled by the same utility, and occasionally the production too!
22:30 you mention the concern of "well if I'm not incentivised enough, I'll just go off-grid and prices for everyone still on the grid will go up" has a solution -- I don't know if US has the same thing, but here in Australia, if you own (even completely empty) property, if mains water and sewer lines run past your property (even if you don't connect ever) you still have to pay a small fee for the maintenance of the systems. I think that's more closely linked to council rates than to the water companies, but the justification is "this physical land requires X metres of pipes to bypass, and they have a cost" or something like that.
In the case of NEM 3.0, it does incentivize installing storage (AKA batteries) along with your solar. They also want you stay tied to the grid, so you can shift your demand to the batteries when required and/or charge the battery at low-demand times. It helps to flatten the duck curve and if batteries continue to get cheaper may be a great option for making grid-tied rooftop solar viable.
It almost certainly makes more sense for the power company to install both solar and batteries, but at least NEM 3.0 moves things in the right direction for individuals.
We have this in Western Australia as standard. In fact no inverters can be sold unless they have NEM3 software on them. Otherwise you get slapped with a massive reduction in export prices.
Microinverters and power optimisers also drastically improve the effectiveness of your panels as any cloud cover or debris cover will affect all other panels in the series. Enphase, SMA and Fronius have great inverters that all use this kinda tech. I went with Enphase myself
@@rtmpgt I don't think you are talking about the same thing. NEM 3.0 is the Net Energy Metering, version 3.0 policy that goes into effect in California in April 2023.
@@tjs114 I believe WE ARE talking about the same thing but from different "angles" you are referring to the metering RATES charged VS SOFTWARE must support the NEM3.0 METERING "method"
it is a "thing" on Canadian solar for grid tied
In Europe the power generation and distribution are charged separately. Even if you're on a bundled deal from a single company (which is true most of the time due to inertia) they're separate line entries on your power bill (there's actually many entries, some of them flat - per-month, some of them per kWh; lmk if you're curious, I could probably translate mine for you or find an example from an anglophone country); if you switch to a different energy generation provider (which you can do whenever you want, you just sign a contract with them) you get two separate bills from two separate companies, one for distribution and one for generation. I'm not 100% sure how net metering works here, but I'd assume it only discounts the per kWh generation costs (ie. you are just paid for the energy you generate).
yup, you pay energy to someone and the "transport/grid use" to the national grid - which is strategic govt. property.
In Italy bills are four pages long, as from this date to this date the kWh costs X+dispatch costs Y and it changed every few days.
@@fabiogalletti8616 in Poland there are actually several regional power distribution companies. I'm not sure if they're all government-owned, but even if they aren't they have special legal obligations and regulations due to their monopoly position and designated vital public utility infrastructure provider status.
When my natural gas furnace broke down last winter, out of a panic, I immediately ordered a replacement natural gas furnace. I knew about heat pump but in the middle of the winter, when there was no heat for my family, there was little room for rational thinking.
We always say, "When you need to replace your heating system, go with a heat pump" but the damn things never quit in the last week of the heating season.
Another inequality it creates is the renting versus owning issue. The only people putting solar on their roofs are the people who own their own homes, which means the people who own are the ones who are going to be able to remove themselves as contributing to the costs of grid maintenance and that puts an even bigger burden on the people who can't afford to buy.
Here in Australia it's not as bad as it seems to be in the US however. I have a number of friends with solar and there doesn't seem to be as many issues as you descrive.
Mandatory NEM3 On new installs is a huge part of it
as a renter, I really think that landlords should be eager to make these installs, or at least it should be a more common option. They already own the building as a long term investment, after all. Having a grid-tied system could defray tenant bills-which would be a nice amenity that can mean higher rent, or pay directly back to the landlord, and battery systems could offer the same. Having a large set of properties should allow them to realize some cost savings by working with a company for multiple sites as well.
@@skytek7081 considering that most landlord are just about breaking even, where do they get the funds to install heatpump, solar and battery Walls? If they try increasing the rent they are called greedy landlords. someone needs to pay, if this becomes mandatory like pgt is mandating then these landlords will just sell up then tenants have hardly anywhere to rent which then push price up (supply/demands) and the landlord still get called greedy
Could work in certain circumstances (much like apartment complexes offering community grounds, pools, etc.; some apartments use to offer all utilities paid, and solar could play into that).
As is, in the distant future when electric cars reach critical mass, several older buildings will need to be retrofitted for car charging. A solar bank exclusively for this is probably one of the cheapest means to do this (and thus appealing to landlords).
Give landlords incentive to do so. We own our house but it was a prior renter [as if the _"Good luck ever getting all your deposit back"_ white tile floors, white walls and ceilings were not enough of a tell]; it came with solar that was installed in 2015; five and a half years before it was put on the market.
Thank you for the discussion on rooftop solar. I've long felt that there was a piece of the puzzle that I didn't grock and this was it. So much better to have the full scope of the issue so to understand how to move forward
I'm glad you touched on this. I saw your original video and felt it gave rooftop solar more credit than should be due. Solar is great, but at this point it's a zero-sum game. As soon as you put solar on your roof, you're competing with the energy generation industry. The industry is deploying renewables rapidly, and will *always* generate far cheaper than you can, due to efficiencies gained at scale. This means the payout forecast you calculate is outdated by the time you finish installing. Couple that with predatory installer pricing, shifting legislative landscape, and lackluster financing, and you'll find that most people who are installing solar now and over the past few years may never actually break even. The time value of their dollars would have been better spent elsewhere.
The best solution to the issues you've mentioned that I've witnessed for private solar ownership is the co-op model. It's big in western Colorado, and it works. The solar is grid tied, done at scales large enough that efficiencies are gained, but are privately owned, which allows your dollar to fairly compete with producers.
I think renewables done right can be the great equalizer, and in my opinion, done right is citizen owned renewable (wind+solar) farms (*and storage*) at the local level. The grid can be the amazing machine it is, everything still interconnected, and all the benefits that brings, but generation can be local, highly redundant, highly distributed, and highly efficient.
Something that is encouraged a lot more here in Hungary than rooftop solar panels: solar collectors for water heating
- does not hurt the grid
- still lowers energy consumption
- still makes rooftops and sunlight useful
- storing heat in water is way easier than batteries
Also, years ago when this was a big topic, collectors were more energy efficient than panels, I think? But with technological advancements I'm not sure if it still stands.
Edit: googled it, solar collectors are still way more efficient than solar panels.
The problem with solar heat is that you get lots of heat in summer and have to take special precautions not to melt/explode your system, whereas in winter, the heat output is usually way too low to heat a home and you need auxiliary (fossil/electrical/other) heat. And given the versatility of electrical energy (especially compared with the relatively low concentration of heat in hot water), photovoltaics is not necessarily worse despite its lower thermodynamic efficiency.
Solar heating is a very bad idea and a total waste of valuable roof space.
There is not a single good reason anymore to use them nowadays.
You get hot water during summer. Nice.
With solar power you get a cool house in summer and warm in the winter.
"Energy efficient" is absolutely not the issue.
@@whuzzzup According to a 2016 study*, solar collectors are only half as efficient in the winter (15%) than in the summer (30%), but that still sounds surprisingly good to me.
Also even the winter one is really close to the maximum optimal efficiency of solar panels which is around 20%, so if you don't have enough hot water in the winter with collectors, you won't have enough with panels either.
It's not that much of a gain in the summer, I get it, but that argument is made with "solars being a good idea" in mind, that this video disputes. That's why my thoughtprocess' starting point was "alternatives to solar panels".
*"Design, Fabrication, and Efficiency Study of a Novel Solar Thermal Water Heating System: Towards Sustainable Development" by M. Z. H. Khan, M. R. Al-Mamun, S. Sikdar, P. K. Halder, and M. R. Hasan
@@poioio96 People here have solar thermal because it was basically a tax trap. Now they are stuck with this inferior technology that needs maintenance for the oil lines and is prone to hail damage, especially if you have the expensive vacuum ones.
They might be more efficient in theory in winter - if there is enough direct sunlight, but you are basically wasting 90% (made up number) of the energy produced in summer.
With solar electric you never waste energy - you use it to cool the house, or sell it in summer. And in winter you use it to run your heat-pump that is far more efficient than a heating rod, so 1 kWh of electricity will give you 3 kWh of heat (or more).
Nowadays (having super cheap solar electric panels and heat pumps) it's a complete waste of roof space.
As far as alleviating the duck curve, I've long thought we need several large east-west HVDC lines running all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific (it's part of what's sometimes referred to as the "Supergrid"). Peak solar/wind in Florida is at a different time than California. You could then sell the excess power across the continent. It wouldn't completely flatten the duck curve, but it would make it flatter than it is now.
One thing you need to consider is that none of the lines used to handle power are super-conducting. Which means the longer the run the more loss of power you have as it gets converted to heat.The more current you try to push through the wire the hotter it gets, and as metal expands when temperature rises, the wire hanging between the towers sag. And in places like California where the people responsible for power line maintenance fail in their jobs, you get massive forest fires.
Transmitting electrical power is economically infeasible after about 1,000 miles. At least that what the electrical grid engineers tell me.
@@wallykramer7566 hvdc changes that paradigm somewhat, and of course the economics are continuously changing with the price of energy. One day the answer to "is it cheaper to truck gallons of oil across the country to a local generator instead of sending that equivalent energy over hvdc lines?" will change.
Power transmission technology is continuously improving and power line maintenance *should* be getting cheaper. Wonder why the utilities keep charging more for distribution, transmission, and maintenance regardless, though...
Here in Finland, getting roof solar has been incetivized without hurting the grid maintenance.
Firstly, buying electricity is divided into two separate parts, the grid cost (or the "transmission"), and the energy cost. This is done so that you can buy the energy from the supplier you want (whether it be for supporting your favorite sources of electricity or just selecting the cheapest option), even when the grid is essentially monopoly for the local company. The energy and grid costs have to be splitted, by law, even if you buy the energy from the same company who has the local grid.
Now, incetivizing becomes waaay easier when the grid cost is handled separately. You just discount the energy price (or set some price for the energy put back to the grid or whatever). Usually backfeeding the grid actually also has small grid fee to assure that the company doesn't fall short on the maintenance fees, even if somebody would only act as supplier and not buy from the grid.
This video describes net metering as something i've never encountered.
Our suburban rooftop solar sells (last i checked) at 7c/unit, about 1/4 the cost to buy from the grid.
Edit: We also have a substantial grid connection fee.
Yeah, the video is wildly misinformed for the majority of people worldwide. There are apparently still a few places in the world where you can get true net metering, but for everywhere else, the points Alec makes his conclusions on are incorrect, so the conclusions themselves are wildly off.
The idea of a neighbors panels making my electricity bill higher is just a power company's fantasy in almost all cases
@@UnreasonableSteve "You, individual gardeners growing your own food, buy your way out of grocery store receipts, forcing us grocery stores to raise prices, so it is your fault that everyone else pay more!". Same flawed logic.
Exactly this. I pay $0.200351/kWH, but sell back at $0.083/kWH, and I also pay a $28.89/month fixed fee just to be connected to the grid.
And if we ever get close to the point where there's too much generation during the day (we're a LONG way from that in my jurisdiction) it can easily be solved by introducing time of use metering to incentivize people to shift both their consumption, and their exporting, to times when there is more demand/less generation.
Same. My install came from Solar City. I pay them for all the energy generated by the panels, that is how the panels are paid off. 8.4c/KWh. My grid connection, is ~12c/KWh. And I am a net importer since on my 2-story house there is not enough space to offset the usage of both floors.
Why the utility could not offer that plan, don't know! The "thorny issue" of who pays for the roof damage isn't thorny, nor an issue. We have been installing solar panels for decades now. It is a solved problem.
Not only that, if the local power monopoly had a similar price structure (~9c for solar generated, 12c for imported power) this would incentivize people to use power during the day. So, that's another issue down.
As for the duck curve, tough. Seriously, don't care. The capacity would have to be there to generate the power during the day regardless. And if your concern is that the panel is inefficient and better placed by the local power monopoly, guess what, they still have to deal with the duck curve! That is a problem for them to solve.
Finally, why are some people in the solar sector pushing for it in spite of the reservations? Simple, their concern is that, unlike many of the current grifters in the political class who pay lip service to climate change but don't adjust their purchasing and travel habits to match, those people honestly believe we need to do things to reduce carbon emissions NOW. If you truly believe that, "inequity" is not a concern. If this is an emergency, then you fix the problem NOW, and address the problems later. Because the problems that are being pushed to later are not in a vacuum. They are compared to THE END IS NEIGH rhetoric of climate change.
Which is worse for your neighbor? A slight increase to their power bill. Collapse of civilization.
If you truly believe the more dire predictions of climate change which is closer to the collapse of civilization, then the answer is pretty obvious. And that is why those people keep pushing as much roof top solar as possible. Every KWh a panel generates is a KWh less carbon dumped into the atmosphere. That's it, that's the equation.
I actually do have net metering. I have two meters, and every kwh I push to the grid is removed from from my consumption from the grid, 1:1. And yes, I do have a grid connection fee too, but it is comparatively small.
Yeah, depending on where you live AND when your system was installed, you may or may not have this option. I'm pretty sure he knows this, but it was not entirely clear because he repeatedly started to say something, and stopped to say whatever else popped into his head. I think he just used incorrect shorthand of 'net metering' to mean 'grid connected rooftop solar'. Most of his points about rooftop solar, though, are relevant regardless of the billing/metering plan.
Finally subscribed to this channel because Alec said "rocket surgery".
Fun fact: Many of the more routine NASA missions involve maintenance or repair of satellites, which is _literally_ rocket surgery.
I can easily imagine a more egalitarian society in which every available rooftop backfeeds into battery storage where we now have power substations. I can also imagine changing building codes such that every south-facing rooftop is solar and a modest percentage of every domicile's space (and it wouldn't be more than the size of a small bureau per person) is dedicated to LiFePO battery storage. I can't imagine such societal shifts within my lifetime, but it's a nice dream.
I used the phrase rocket surgery once, and someone immediately jumped on me to say "Well *actually* It's ROCKET SCIENCE or BRAIN SURGERY, there's no such thing as rocket surgery..." and I just... died a little inside.
I hadn't even thought about the incentives. Thank you for bringing those up.
Interesting. I hadn't considered the cost shifting involved in rooftop solar. It's something I've been considering (tho not seriously as I don't really have southern exposure on my roof in the first place), but now I'm less sure.
I don't think adding solar which is heavy to roof, that add holes to roof to attach like 1000 nails and screws, that wind also can catch, that contractor can mess up somehow, is wise for house.. . . Don't the sun shine on yard why not build a 45 degree structure from back property line. If the only answer is "building codes" that's a bad answer. . . But I love solar, it's amazing for $100k of cells and batts could have modern life in middle of jungle or mountain, what amazing tech. But amortized that's $10000 yearly so people prefer grid costing $3000. But amazing tech ...
Considering the Duck Curve a east/west roof might be a better option generally.
@@deelkar ... We should live in EV campervans shaped like a wedge, w solar on roof, which extends a forward roof and rear roof to triple area, and it can inch forward in circle every half hour to track sun. . . Ha. . Sounds silly..
West and/or East facing or South East or South West roofs work well, because you're more likely to be able to use the electricity directly, which is always best. South facing generates more electricity, but it's less economically desirable electricity.
@@BooBaddyBig if you can "sink" a LOT of that electricity into heating a storage water tank OR boost heating living space (thermal mass) or charging an EV IE a heavy load that is time of demand controllable
A SPAN panel is like 30x the cost of a normal panel, and it would be pretty ridiculous to install one of those and not spend the extra 10%-25% to also upgrade your service. I think Eaton Smart breakers are more what you're looking for (just a shame they only make WiFi models and not Z-Wave)
Ouch, for what it is (or should be), those are HUGE margins.
10-25% of what? The Span panel? A Span panel, from a quick search, is about $4000, which is expensive. But if your power runs underground (as it does in many places) and you have to trench and run new wires underground, particularly in an area where the wires run under a sidewalk or street, no f-ing way you’re going to do that for even the same price as the span panel, let alone 10-25% of it. So, not sure where your numbers are coming from, but they seem wildly inaccurate.
@@ouch1011 The panel alone is $4500 inclusive of nothing (not even shipping) and installation is estimated to cost at least $3500, so you're in it for a minimum of $8k, and probably more like $10k+. And while you could have a 1/2 mile long driveway and need to spend $20k for new buried service, for the vast majority of people it's not going to cost more than $2k, and for many people with overhead service it's more like $750. So that is where I got my numbers, though I don't know where your numbers are coming from, but they're the ones that seem inaccurate.
Always appreciate your nuanced and thought-through opinions on topics.
I have been having doubts about installing solar panels and you very clearly explained why. It doesn’t make sense without local storage, but if I do that, the breakeven point will be so far into the future that I can’t financially justify it…
The breakeven point is infinity if you don't start. Payback begins when you switch it on, and it insulates you from fossil fuel price hikes.
Also, the benefits are not just financial. It is worth a lot to me to know that I'm not contributing to filling up children's lungs with poisons or killing life and reducing the habitability of the only home we have.
If anyone says to me what did I do to help in the fight against global heating, then I can answer proudly and die contented that I did my bit.
I love where you're coming from and I'm totally on board. The problem is I'm stuck at step one: own a house.
Hi! Recently stumbled across your channels and have gone through quite a number of videos at this point.
I'm Swedish and I'm obviously not an expert in the US power grid system, but I think I have a fair grasp on it. And I don't see why you couldn't theoretically use the same method we use.
While I have more than just a few salty remarks on how the Swedish power grid is run, this very problem with solar panels is actually not one of them, and I thought I'd explain why.
Every single-family house (or town house, etc) that's connected to the grid has 2 separate power bills each month.
There is one bill from the grid-operator (which operator that is depends on exactly where you live, but there are a handful of them across the country), and then there is a bill from your "power-trading"-company. Now that CAN be the same company if you so choose, but you are 100% free to choose whatever power-trading company you wish. And there are a LOT of power-trading companies. One can think of them as power-brokers really.
Now, what happens is that the bill from your power-trading company consists of simply the cost of the energy you've bought, offset by the energy you've sold. (and in some cases, such as mine, also offset by me offering up grid-stabilizing in the form of letting them control when my EV charges, I get paid quite handsomely for it and it's still charged in time, they just optimize when it's best for the grid)
I have hourly rates, so I'm always incentivized to use energy when it's the cheapest, which is also when demand is at it's lowest, which helps flatten the curve.
All solar generation that's exported is also on hourly rates, and that's not because I buy energy like that, it's always like that for everybody. Buying and selling is technically two different contracts, and while you can buy on fixed rates (and other special deals), I don't know of anyone offering anything other than hourly rates for buying your exported solar energy.
During the summer months I generally end up earning money, which is held by my power-trading company and used to offset the bills in the darker months.
But then we get to the OTHER bill I get each month, and that's from the grid provider.
That bill has 3 parts.
First is a tax-collection for using energy (so it doesn't really go to the grip operator, it goes to our version of the IRS, the grid operator is just the collector since the amount is based on used energy, so by using my own solar energy I don't have to pay as much in tax).
Second is a small offsetting bonus for supplying power locally. This is reflecting of how much I've saved the grid operator from having to transport energy from further away, and thus reducing transmission losses. This is a very minor post, for reference the tax per kWh is just shy of 60, and the grid helping bonus is generally in the single digits per kWh any given month.
Thirdly, and this is where it gets interesting, there is a fixed subscription fee for being connected to the grid, and it's completely dependent on your service level.
Any house can choose from a quite wide variety of different service levels (I gather that there's pretty much only 100A and 200A in the US?).
Since we have 3-phase the actual Ampere levels are quite different and won't tell you much, but translated into power (rounded) the service levels are:
7 kW (only apartments use that low mains), 11 kW, 14 kW, 17 kW, 22 kW, 33 kW, and 44 kW.
The grid operator is required by law to provide you with the option of how large your main breaker should be, up to and including the level that gives you a whooping 44 kW. But it also gets progressively more expensive to have the higher levels. And it's not just a one-time cost, it's a running maintenance fee you pay each month.
Most houses generally fall in the 11 kW - 17 kW range. I have a 22 kW main breaker, which is not unheard of, but not common. 33 kW and 44 kW are basically not a thing for normal people, that's if you have a farm or something.
The point here though (you're not the only one who has a penchant for being long winded btw... this is a very abbreviated version of what I first felt like writing...) is that the cost for being connected to the grid is separated from the costs AND earnings from buying and selling energy ON the grid.
There's so many more things I kind of want to bring up, but they're not entirely related to the problem of grid stability funding, so I shall resist. ^^
I live in San Antonio TX, so my feelings about the grid are not quite as sanguine as yours. I’ve recently started looking at rooftop solar (with storage) and have found a few things that speak to your points. BTW, the reason I’m looking at solar is due to the last few years here in TX. I have no faith that the powers that be have any interest in “fixing” anything. I think they want to band-aid the problem and push it beyond their administrations.
Our local utility sort of practices net metering. Any power you buy from them is $ 0.14 a kw, but any power they buy from you is $0.10. So you are helping to support the grid.
The other item I’ve found is that there are inverter systems now that can disconnect you from the grid during a power outage and allow you to run individually off the grid, which is the way I’m planning to go.
I will not likely have an array that can support all of my household needs, but If I can have access to SOME power when TX gets cold and the folks who run our grid react like cocaine addled spider monkeys, then I’ll take it.
I feel you. My grid is pretty good here, but I have extended family there, and it's infuriating to see how political grand-standing and hubris have caused the leadership (there and in Washington) to fail their citizenry so badly. Shameful. We've maybe gotten too comfortable, and lost focus as a nation. But given recent geopolitical events, I hope we figure it out soon.
Our electricity bill includes separate line items for per-kWh electricity use (on-peak, mid-peak, and off-peak), as well as for per-kWh connection, distribution, and transmission. I think having the electricity net metered but the other per-kWh charges applied regardless of which direction the electricity was flowing would be the fairest system. You'd have real trouble selling that to the public though.
In the UK, the novel scheme is to time warp consumption. Mains is charged and metered at various "time of day rates" so according to your supplier a night time 5 - 7 hours will be charged at about a third of the peak daytime rate. So, if you draw lots of electricity over the night time cheap rate period and charge a battery, and you then consume that electricity at times when day or peak rate charges apply. The result is typically a 50% saving in electricity cost for using the same amount of power/energy. Typically the night time draw is 10kWh at 15p/kWh which replaces 10kWh which at daytime rates would cost 45p/kWh. So we spend £1.50 at night to get £4.50 worth of daytime electricity.
The issue I have with the change from NEM 2 to NEM 3 is it's taking what is currently a pricing structure that doesn't accurately reflect the costs of grid maintenance and power generation and replacing it with a different pricing structure that still doesn't accurately reflect the costs of grid maintenance and power generation. As of this moment, PG&E is charging me $0.55/kwh for power I consume, but the spot price for power in my area is currently $0.10/kwh (google caiso spot prices for a map of prices). However, last summer during heat waves I've been charged $0.43/kwh while the spot price was over $1.20/kwh. I just want to be charged fairly for both the power I consume and the power I produce, based on real time market conditions. NEM 3 could have unbundled a grid maintenance fee from power consumption and generation rates, but instead it only reduced the amount being credited for solar generation while keeping all other charges the same.
+100, the opaque price structure is the root of the problem. If the grid maintenance is 75% of the total bill amount, then it must be reflected as so, and everyone should have an almost flat rate. Utilities lie in their bills, someone eventually exploits this, and utilities start playing a dirty political blame game about "those filthy riches buying their way out of bills and hurting poors". Disgusting.
I'm curious how this has played out in Australia, where about 1/3 of the homes nationally have rooftop PV, and it's up to 82% in Queensland (at least for houses that have "appropriate" roofs, so I presume some are too shaded or too complex).
It is not uncommon now for grid price to be negative because there is excess power. This is the grid instability mentioned, low demand from all the rooftop input but highly variable, not predictable day to day or hour to hour.
A problem of management but quite a way from the peak summer brownouts on the edge of blackout of decades ago.
As they said most of the problems are political rather than practical. Energy flow is money flow and where there is money there are people using rules to advantage.
Now with periods of too much energy storage gains attention.
At this minute , mid-day, start of Autumn ,decent winds East coast grid input price ($AU) is
Qld $14.84 per MWh
NSW $60.00
SA $-49.83 yes negative price for generation
Vic $-44.00
Tas $-47.00
And a new update a few minutes later
Qld $0.00 per MWh
NSW $60.00
SA $-57.53
Vic $-52.62
Tas $-9.22
Domestic consumers don't see that cheap negative cost power in their bills. Industrial consumers may, 'please sir, turn on your high demand'. Of course the cost of getting power of the grid is only partially the energy production cost as they said.
Not anything like this in the AUS (or CAN). Homes are newer on average and infrastructure is better. (AUS is in better position than CAN)
In NZ we have daily fixed charges built into our power bills for line upkeep. Your kWh usage is charged on top of that.
Power companies buy back your kWh you generate at a different (lower) rate to what you are charged for kWh usage too
My electricity plan allows me to keep my free nights (common in Texas due to excess wind energy at night) INSTEAD of receiving any net metering for my solar panels. I love this arrangement from an individual perspective. I’d never thought of it from the large scale you mentioned though. I hope that by switching the burden of my home from high demand days to “flatten the curve” by switching my grid consumption to nights is fair to the larger system.
While we’re talking about home electrification, and knowing your love of heat pumps, now feels like a good time to ask:
You’ve often pointed out how even an inefficient heat pump is remarkably efficient- how *inefficient* would it be to move a portable AC unit outside and use it for heating? I know you have one lying around, want to run some tests for me? 😉
Some other commentators already mentioned that in most European countries the energy you feed into the power grid is measured and compensated respectively charged separate from the energy obtained from the grid. In most countries (at least the ones I heard about) you get paid a defined compensation for the energy you feed into the power grid. Typically, this compensation is just a fraction of the price of electric energy. So there is a huge incentive to time your energy consumption with your own generation of electricity.
An important achievement of the last years are small photovoltaic installations consisting of one to four modules of ~400 watts each and a micro inverter connected to the power grid by using a normal plug. The micro inverter is allowed to output at most 800 watts and one inverter is allowed per meter. This arrangement is called Balkonkraftwerk (balcony power plant) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Due to very small installation costs and little paperwork needed compared to large installs, this started to be pretty common here in Germany during 2022/23. It is even possible to use a Balkonkraftwerk in rented apartments. In most cases, there will be no compensation for the energy fed into the grid. This makes photovoltaic power generation accessible to more people than before.
That rate structure makes perfect sense because most usage is during the day and that is a problem for the generators. If they can balance their load between day vs night, they (hopefully) won't have to increase (very expensive) generation capacity to meet just those peak loads. Another way is offering a lower rate if you agree to participate in controlled rolling blackouts in order to limit the load on the grid.
Except most usage *isn't* during the day, but in the evening, when everyone gets home from work and starts cooking/doing laundry/taking showers. Which is after the sun starts setting
This is correct. Current annual peak demand levels in almost every part of the country are hot summer afternoons around 2-4 pm (in the winter, peak does shift a bit later but the actual peak is far lower)
So yeah solar panels are extremely compatible with reducing grid demand and as such, reducing the biggest cost that power companies have. A utility company obtains more financial benefit by you putting up solar than you get in energy savings, by getting your free assistance with shaving peak demand
It's also very equitable so I'm not sure what this guy is on about. A typical residential electric bill has three parts, the commodity cost pass-through plus the time-related delivery cost (how much you demand, basically) plus the fixed meter cost that pays for you to be connected. A person with solar still pays the fixed cost to maintain their share of being connected to the grid, but pays less or nothing for the demand charge since they're putting less strain on the grid
Electrician in Oregon, USA . From my experience doing hundreds of service upgrades, most houses built since the 60s already have service conductors from transformer to house that are rated for 200a service by the utility. Only the service entrance conductors from the mast to the meter need to be changed for code compliance. The reasoning is that the conductors outside the home do not pose a fire Hazzard to the residence and this don't have the same safety margin as conductors ran inside walls.
it occurs to me that all of the issues you have with people who have solar panels not paying for upkeep of the electrical grid would be solved if the electrical grid was taxpayer funded
I'm not sure if it's changed, but over here in Ohio AEP had a set up where you're flat out not allowed to set up solar unless you do it via them, hook it into the grid and allow them to leech off your stores even to your homes detriment (to balance the grid I guess?) Which is very sad and frustrating cause my house has an orientation that would probably benefit a lot from having panels on it for much of the year.
That just increases demand on the grid 😢
That's because AEP is a for profit publicly-traded company. Their only mandate is to generate profit. Where I live, the power grid is owned and managed by our government. It's still not idea but we have some of the lowest rates in our country. This is a case where the government should be providing critical infrastructure rather than private business.
@@fergusontea I'm from Texas natively where Electricity is still privately owned but by a billion different companies so it's harder to pin frustrations on just one. All I know about the grid up here in Ohio is that AEP owns almost all of it, and nobody likes them because of a long list of mismanagement and greed.
@@bluefish239 -- I'm Canadian. We tend to be relatively socialist which means we have less bullshit when it comes to power but we still have problems. Our public generator is a couple of billion dollars Canadian in debt.
There is the possibility of adding panels not to your roof, but maybe in another spot (back yard maybe?) and have those charge up private battery backups for yourself, then switching over if/when you need to.
Good points as always; I think you will find that you the homeowner will be charged (at least a base rate) for services that you do not use.I think that this issue will be addressed in the manner in which electric car owners,in some places, pay a extra fee because they don't pay a gas tax.
Fellow Chicagoan here, going through the panel upgrade question right now. I'm getting an electric car and debating the best way to power it. I have a estimate from an electrician for a 200amp panel for $8k. The more I learn, the less that seems wise.
Been watching for a while and I love that you've dived into my alley finally. I am a long time PV designer for the largest residential solar provider and I've always found it crazy how unfair solar is for main utility companies and the grid. It's partly why there has been a huge shift in the industry to get battery storage added to all systems but it is tricky. At the moment there is a massive push for PV with batteries (battery storage varies greatly),SPAN panels, plus EV chargers, factor in that a lot of homes in recent years have already had gas generators installed that are incompatible/need to be separate from the PV and you have a confusing mish mash of products and configurations that most homeowners don't understand at all.The NEM 3.0 that CA utilities are pushing has everyone scrambling to get grandfathered in but in the meantime a new solution (maybe) is that all residential solar in CA at least once NEM 3.0 rolls around will be paired with a battery to have the battery provide power at peak grid usage to hopefully alleviate some of the concerns discussed in this video. TLDR - you are absolutely correct that residential solar doesn't make sense but it's constantly evolving as new products become available and there are a lot of people, like me, who are trying to make it make sense.
"mish mash of products" -- Outback's Mojave and Schneider's XW Pro Hybrid Inverter. Coupled with AC-coupled solar. This is all most people need. Its pretty simple but most contractors in my area have no idea of what to do with batteries. They dont even know the main players in hybrid inverters to connect batteries to the grid.
Wow, thanks Sempra(Tm) for that excellent grass roots comment!
Residential solar is in no way "unfair" to the utilities, considering the rules it's under (particularly in California) were all but designed by the utilities. "A lot of homes in recent years have gas generators" the amount of homes that have generator hookups that in *any* way impact grid or solar connections is vanishingly small. Perhaps your particular "experience" varies because people who want to be self sufficient with solar panels+batteries have some overlap with people who have a whole home generator backup. Sampling bias for sure.
How in the world do you see solar panels with NEM2 as "doesn't make sense"? This really does read like someone paid by an "investor" owned utility
> I've always found it crazy how unfair solar is for main utility companies and the grid.
How is it unfair? PG&E sent me a bill. If the cost of maintaing the grid was 75% of the total, then I'd expect to see this in their itemization. But I see a completely different picture: they charge me mostly for power comsumption, not for the grid maintenance. It is they who composed the bill, not me. Nobody forced them. They could itemize true costs, but they didn't. So, do they lie to me? Is it fair?
If grid maintenance costs more than stated in the bill, then ustility is a dishonest company, and they deserve to be punished for that.
@@UnreasonableSteve First off, no need to attack. Second, gas generators don't need to be whole home, they can be partial, small big, portable, fixed, cheap, expensive, installed by a pro, or installed by a clueless homeowner, and they are becoming very common. Third, my point about unfairness is that in a truly free market, the utility companies could completely deny the installation of residential solar because their equipment is still required for the home to function unless the home is setup with whole home battery backup. The point made in the video is that the standard PV install only hurts the utility companies and grid which it does. If you are the utility company you do not want to have to pay the homeowners for energy generation that utilizes their equipment. It would be different if the utility company was actively seeking homeowners to generate excess energy but they aren't and that's fair so NEM 3.0 is fair and NEM 2.0 is less fair.
@@onebronx Don't get me wrong, utility companies suck and likely a good amount of them are taking advantage of people. However, at the moment we are reliant on them so it sucks but it is what it is and if you care enough, pester the city or politicians to get something done about it. My point was solar is unfair to them, irrelevant to them being good or bad.
Had to replace my main breaker panel a few years ago. We went ahead and upgraded to 200A at the same time. There was only a negligible cost difference and no difference in downtime since the utility and the electrician work in parallel. But we have a straight shot from the pole to our house, so it was dead simple. However, we have yet to actually need that extra 100A, and it's only there in case we need an EV charger install down the line. Especially with lights and appliances getting more efficient, we rarely pull even close to capacity, even at peak usage.
Buried electrical service can easily cost $15k to upgrade.
On the other hand, I think it's a great idea for people to cap their gas connection, and opt out of that system. Now you don't need to pay delivery fees and less money going towards that fossil fuel based infrastructure.
I had my service upgraded from 100 amps to 200 amps and it cost me about $3500 back in 2018. So it's not exactly cheap but in the world of home improvement it's also not super expensive. So that gives you some idea of what it would cost.
Was that for an underground line?
I've seen a quote for 20,000 dollarydoos before! The house wasn't even that far from the transformer but it was in a developed area and would've required ripping up sidewalks. The price seems to be very location dependent from my experience.
@Kraus no, and apparently a trenched upgrade is a LOT more expensive according to the other reply! I had no idea it was that much more!
$2200 in 2020, though that also included running a 6-3 w/ground to a new EVSE (the impetus for upgrading - existing 100A panel had more total circuits than it was rated for)
Probably $1800 for parts/labor for everything except the EVSE.
About 10 years earlier our utility had undergrounded every line in town and that required running new lines to everybody's meter. They ran wire sufficient to provide 200 amp service since they had to run new lines anyway
Appreciate you brother. You're one of the last bastions of actual facts, reasoning, deduction, and common sense. You're doing important work.
I wonder how much grid maintenance would go down if the power companies would actually put money into upgrading the grid? I've heard for years about how the grid its self is antiquated and can barely handle the amount of demand it has on it. We need to build a smarter grid that can transfer power more efficiently, we're only using more power every year.
Not directly related here but I wanted to advocate for hybrid electric (heat pump) water heaters. Water heaters tend to get replaced more frequently than e.g. the heating system, so next time you have to do it, get a hybrid electric water heater, great first step towards more electric and less fossil fuel use in your house. I've had one for several years (it replaced domestic hot water heating from my oil-burning furnace; so great not to hear that thing turn on in the middle of the summer!) and it's hardly ever used the resistive "backup" heating, just a little heat pump, uses very little electricity compared to normal electric hot water.
What brand/model did you go with?
Right now I'm considering a 65g Rheem, but there doesn't seem to be much info out there on them.
@@Jcewazhere I have the Rheem 50g Hybrid water heater with a heat pump at the top used to pull the heat out of the air and expel the cold into the room it's in (usually cooling the garage a little). I love it as it uses at least 5x less electricity to heat the water. While it can take longer using the heat pump instead of the heating elements (it has both but in energy saver mode it uses the heat pump 90% of the time). It can cost $1,200 vs a $400 standard water heater, but over the life of the water heater the money saved significantly increases. Year 1: Cost of Hybrid ($1,200) plus 1 year of use ($100) = $1,300; Cost of standard ($400) plus 1 year of use ($500) = $900. Year 2: Hybrid year 1 ($1,300) plus year 2 use ($100) = $1,400; Standard year 1 ($900) plus year 2 use ($500) = $1,400; After year 2 add $100 for hybrid and $500 for standard each year, you can see the savings. After 10 years, the hybrid has cost you $2,200 while the standard has cost you $5,400. You can control the hybrid to use the heating elements if you have guests over using more hot water than normal to heat the water faster for additional use.
The one thing that you said makes it all make sense: "A panel in a farm > A panel on a rooftop". Given that panels are currently a finite resource right now, it makes much more sense to fill up farms with collectively-owned panels than have privately owned panels on rooftops.
Too many Americans have been brainwashed to be afraid of and freak out about anything done collectively that they can't opt out oof without a negative consequence or anything related to taxes as they've been made to think "taxes are evil and theft".
@@jwb52z9 Yep. Beau of the Fifth Column just dropped a video about the lowest paying college majors in the US. No surprise that education was 4 of the lowest 10.
You said your rambling as you do. Please, keep on rambling. It's one of the reasons I keep watching. Thanks!
There is a device called SplitVolt that will let you switch water heater off if the drier is running, it's made for connecting an EV charger and a drier to the same 30A outlet. Putting a plug on the water heater might break code, I haven't seen a hardwired version of the SplitVolt but maybe they do exist.
In the house I grew up in, my dad wired the water heater through a 240V 20A receptacle. I don’t see any reason the water heater needs to be hardwired.
@@kc9scott Different areas have different codes for anything that mixes electricity and water, so it might be fine in some areas but not others. Usually it's a GFCI issue, hardwired doesn't need one, but if you use a plug it does, and the higher in amps you go the more expensive GFCI breakers get vs. normal breakers.
I get a HUGE amount of spam, phone calls as well as texts and even some guy at Costco to install solar panels. Which is even more annoying for me, because I rent! But their pitches all have the hallmarks of "too good to be true". I'd probably have been talked into it if I did my own house, or even a condo!, but poverty has saved me from that! EVs, too! Being broke is not so bad, once in a while. 😥 So, no rooftop solar for me, no matter how much I might have wanted it.
Yeah EVs I still don't trust, they need some more time to refine, a friend of mines dad had bought one of the new F-150 Lightnings and he has had many issues it's even left him stranded a couple times, meanwhile the 1999 F-150 his neighbor has owned since new is still going strong because he takes care of it, it's just so simple to repair and maintain compared to an EV.
@Cody The Radiogen I hate the ozone argument every time it's brought up. The ozone didn't just fix itself all on its own! Governments around the world banned the use of CFCs (the primary cause of the destruction of the ozone layer), which allowed the ozone layer to heal. If we continued to use CFCs, the ozone layer would not have healed.
Solar PV absolutely makes sense. But, yes there are lots of sleazy sales pitches. But a good purchase of a PV system at a reasonable price pays for itself over time. I self-installed and it is ridiculous how little I pay for energy...not gasoline since I have an EV, replaced furnace with heat pump, replaced water heater with heat pump water heater, etc.
@@hawxchampion523how do you know the ozone layer would not have healed???? Need proof it would not have healed on it's own.
@Cody The Radiogen "Nobody's did[sic] anything different and the ozone layer fixed itself" except for banning the pollutant that is largely responsible for ozone depletion.
I know this is a very old video, but just watched it today.
Others may have mentioned, but I think the problem of equity and sustainability of “the grid” ends up different state by state. In NYS electricity deregulation yielded 2 parts to your bill; generation and transmission (the grid). Net metering only applies to the generation portion of the bill. So even if the rooftop Solar we installed about 10 months ago could produce more power than we use in a year (the most panels we could fit only came to about 1/3), we would still be paying the transmission portion of the bill to support the grid.
Thanks for discussing the inequities. I hadn't considered any of that and haven't heard anyone else either so I'm glad you are being a voice for it.
I totally agree with you about solar and the grid but I see that even with a 10 year payback, I still see people going solar because it's very empowering being energy independent. I also believe going solar is better than buying a new car.
Definitely. There's something that feels really American regarding about solar - i.e. the ability to just be really independent, that attracts a lot of people, and it makes sense.
@@isaac10231 American with standing, independenc is a great feeling. Because of our solar system my wife love the fact that she can take the EV out basically for free or when we have family around we can drive them around the island without the guilt of gas money. Solar keeps the wealth in my pocket rather than giving it to some greedy petroleum corp.
In the UK, households pay a daily "standing charge" which goes towards the grid infrastructure, and we have to have meters that can differentiate the amount being fed to the grid vs the amount being pulled from it, rather than just netting it, with the kWh cost difference currently being circa 7:1 for energy consumed vs energy fed into the grid.
7:1, LOL... if you use the "Right" supplier its more like 2.95:1
@@alanwood9804 7:1 based on 35p SVR vs 5p typical feed in when looking at whole-day tariffs, but yes, there are a small number of specialist tariffs that offer better ratios than that eg octopus flex.
@@Paul_Y_T Yep, Octopus are paying 15p/Kwh for export... thats why I said the "Right" supplier!!
😉
I’m really interested in air-to-water heat pumps, especially since they can be retrofit to existing wet systems (which are still pretty common where I’m at) and provide dhw. Curious what your thoughts are.
Yeah indeed. Radiators are the norm for residential buildings throughout Europe, so I was kinda wondering why he mentioned in the main video that heat pumps wouldn't be as good a solution as they are for HVAC residences. As far as I know air-to-water heat pumps are still becoming quite common here
WSHP's (water source heat pumps) are massively common in commercial buildings in the San Diego region.
They are very inefficient in any remotely cold climate, you're far better off going with water-to-water (geothermal)