Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is considered 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster than a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX, there were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven by residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually down 5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting Elon Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches the mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those panels may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation and they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
your
house:
I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is only peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many objections.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more new installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they would only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale prices for everyone who is backfeeding.
I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ by state...
73,
Burns W2BFJ
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is considered 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster than a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX, there were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
by
residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
down
5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
Elon
Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
the
mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
mean
that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
panels
may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
and
they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
your
house:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Burns,
I can not possibly comment on the US electrical systems and laws & policies around them, but from a technical point of view there is a huge reason to hold off on all these extra feed-ins. And that simple reason is grid stability.
So regardless of any tariff schemes and/or the power companies trying to keep their market, there is a substantial technical hurdle. I don't know how it is in the US, but I did some research during an internship on this in The Netherlands, and as a result, some kinds of inverters were outlawed in the EU because they were really dangerous to the grid stability, and also not safe in the end when instabilities did occur. (and not all of those were made in china....) Are they discouraging a growth beyond a certain size just to prevent this issue?
Maybe this is substantially different in the US, since the grid looks completely different.
Wouter PA3WEG
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Burns Fisher burns@fisher.cc wrote:
I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is only peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many objections.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more new installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they would only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale prices for everyone who is backfeeding.
I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ by state...
73,
Burns W2BFJ
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is
considered
0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
than
a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I
had
to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift
it
into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
there
were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
by
residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
down
5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were
not
keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
Elon
Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
the
mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
mean
that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
panels
may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
and
they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
your
house:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
from a technical point of view there is a huge reason to hold off on all these extra feed-ins (net-metering). And that simple reason is grid stability.
True and false....
It is true that the grid of 1970 has to evolve to avoid problems with grid stability. But they have been aware of these problems and have been evolving for the last 40 years to get away from the catastrophic results of business as usual and resulting half-country blackouts.
Although the utilities are glacially slow to adapt, the growth of solar and wind has also been glacially slow because people just resist change even when it is to their advantage. But the GRID has seen it coming and has been getting ready.
10 years ago, they said the grid will go unstable above 2% solar (because they NEVER even looked at the weather to estimate tomorrow's load). Now the weather model is an excellent forcaster of available power an dload. Then 5 years ago they were saying the grid would go unstable at 10%. (Absolutely true if they still did nothing to improve their systems from the 1970s way of dispatching power But they have not been sitting still).
Guess what, Hawaii has now passed 40% solar and the grid has still not gone unstable because every day they are improving how they manage the grid. Back in 2013, Germany exceeded 60% solar and wind and their grid held up fine. Then this year, the Netherlands peaked at 100% solar/wind and their grid did just fine. The US can easily keep up with the evolving grid as long as we dont get held back by the fossil fuel industry's opposition.
So of course, the stability of the grid is a concern, but that is why we have some of the best EE's on the planet working in parallel for 3 decades with renwewable growth to stay ahead of the variability of renewable clean power.
So I don't fault anyone for commenting on the stability of the grid, but it is always last year's news and not keeping up with the day to day march toward cleaner power.
I attended an IEEE International Conference on Energy last year and expected to hear gloom and doom. I heard exactlly the opposite. Every paper showing techinques, and how to achieve stability and renewable growth were ten times as many as the few claiming doom. And most papers were showing how easy it was with positiv results and others how we will be able to grow the changes to make the grid more responsive.
So keep a jaundiced ear to repetitions of decades or even last year's dire predictions... the world is changing despite the billions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry to make sure they remain on top.
Bob, Wb4APR
So regardless of any tariff schemes and/or the power companies trying to keep their market, there is a substantial technical hurdle. I don't know how it is in the US, but I did some research during an internship on this in The Netherlands, and as a result, some kinds of inverters were outlawed in the EU because they were really dangerous to the grid stability, and also not safe in the end when instabilities did occur. (and not all of those were made in china....) Are they discouraging a growth beyond a certain size just to prevent this issue?
Maybe this is substantially different in the US, since the grid looks completely different.
Wouter PA3WEG
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Burns Fisher burns@fisher.cc wrote:
I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is only peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many objections.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more new installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they would only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale prices for everyone who is backfeeding.
I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ by state...
73,
Burns W2BFJ
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it
right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is
considered
0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
than
a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I
had
to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift
it
into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
there
were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the
total
installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily
driven
by
residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
down
5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were
not
keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
Elon
Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels
are
expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
the
mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
mean
that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
panels
may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
and
they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and
for
your
house:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Bob, agreed on almost all points but:
1) I Live in the Netherlands. I had no idea you would see 40% decentralized as "high". My research was for 90 - 100%, and was 10 years ago. The area I live in has received some major upgrades to the grid, but there are places where decentralized production would still cause problems because of (local) instabilities.
2) We have lots of greenhouses in my area. The production of power by the farmers (=decentralized) grew from 150MW in 2005 to 800MW in 2010. last years numbers have not been published yet. farmers generate around 13% of the countries power with local gas turbines, the CO2 is piped into the greenhouses to make the crop grow, and the heat is used to heat the greenhouses and neighboring houses etc. This 13% is NOT renewable.
3) The energy need of The Netherlands hardly changes over the year, since we do not have ACs in homes, and only newer office buildings are getting power efficient ones. Older buildings just don't have AC. We actually need slightly more power in the winter, since we need more lighting as it gets dark earlier.
4) When the sun shines and it is still cold (spring) we get peak PhotoVoltaic production. we have to dial down our gas fired plants to accommodate for this. Fortunately, the gas plants are fast in control, so clouds or change in weather can be catered for. Lots of our coal plants have been shut in the 80s/90s, although some "base load" coal plants are still in operation, and a new one is being built as well.
5) There is no reason in The Netherlands to not have extra renewable energy sources. I really don't know how your "fossil fuel industry's opposition" can keep you from putting solar panels on your roof. I think everyone should!
6) I think you have a different definition of grid stability. What I tested is the following: If the power goes away in a city that runs on 90% local production, that may have a very good reason. You want the power to go down in case a short circuit exists or there is a transformer fault somewhere. Or when you want to work on an isolated section of the grid. In case of our 100% Photovoltaic and wind inverter case, even if the breaker in the block transformer goes, all there inverters will happily continue supplying power. They periodically check if the "grid" is still there by switching off their own inverter and measuring the line. In case of, say, 100 inverters, you can almost guarantee that the 99 others will make sure that "grid" is there during the measurement period. Now, there things are all synchronizing to the "grid" that in this case is just your 99 neighbors. so the frequency can drift away and they will all happily drift with with each other. The cheap models I tested had two very dangerous features: A - they sensed each other as valid grid voltage, leaving an engineer unable to cut the power on a section of line. There was no way to shut these suckers off in case you need to work at the substation safely B - the grid frequency (50Hz here) would run away upwards until there were MOSFets flying everywhere. We literally had a dozen kill themselves when we did that experiment. It was huge fun though, hearing them scream ;)
7) Our national grid has had 99.9999% uptime over the last years, with 4 interruptions in 2014.
Lastly, unfortunately my country is still pathetic in using solar power. we should really be doing more here and world-wide. Yes, we peaked at 100%, for a very short time though ;)
In conclusion: there may be technical problems with decentralized power production that may lead to a feed-in stop by the power company. But these are local stops and backed up by engineers. not bankers. Again, all my arguments are technical for my local country and your mileage may vary.
73
Wouter PA3WEG
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
from a technical point of view there is a huge reason to hold off on all these extra feed-ins (net-metering). And that simple reason is grid stability.
True and false....
It is true that the grid of 1970 has to evolve to avoid problems with grid stability. But they have been aware of these problems and have been evolving for the last 40 years to get away from the catastrophic results of business as usual and resulting half-country blackouts.
Although the utilities are glacially slow to adapt, the growth of solar and wind has also been glacially slow because people just resist change even when it is to their advantage. But the GRID has seen it coming and has been getting ready.
10 years ago, they said the grid will go unstable above 2% solar (because they NEVER even looked at the weather to estimate tomorrow's load). Now the weather model is an excellent forcaster of available power an dload. Then 5 years ago they were saying the grid would go unstable at 10%. (Absolutely true if they still did nothing to improve their systems from the 1970s way of dispatching power But they have not been sitting still).
Guess what, Hawaii has now passed 40% solar and the grid has still not gone unstable because every day they are improving how they manage the grid. Back in 2013, Germany exceeded 60% solar and wind and their grid held up fine. Then this year, the Netherlands peaked at 100% solar/wind and their grid did just fine. The US can easily keep up with the evolving grid as long as we dont get held back by the fossil fuel industry's opposition.
So of course, the stability of the grid is a concern, but that is why we have some of the best EE's on the planet working in parallel for 3 decades with renwewable growth to stay ahead of the variability of renewable clean power.
So I don't fault anyone for commenting on the stability of the grid, but it is always last year's news and not keeping up with the day to day march toward cleaner power.
I attended an IEEE International Conference on Energy last year and expected to hear gloom and doom. I heard exactlly the opposite. Every paper showing techinques, and how to achieve stability and renewable growth were ten times as many as the few claiming doom. And most papers were showing how easy it was with positiv results and others how we will be able to grow the changes to make the grid more responsive.
So keep a jaundiced ear to repetitions of decades or even last year's dire predictions... the world is changing despite the billions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry to make sure they remain on top.
Bob, Wb4APR
So regardless of any tariff schemes and/or the power companies trying to keep their market, there is a substantial technical hurdle. I don't know how it is in the US, but I did some research during an internship on this in The Netherlands, and as a result, some kinds of inverters were
outlawed
in the EU because they were really dangerous to the grid stability, and also not safe in the end when instabilities did occur. (and not all of those were made in china....) Are they discouraging a growth beyond a certain size just to prevent this issue?
Maybe this is substantially different in the US, since the grid looks completely different.
Wouter PA3WEG
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Burns Fisher burns@fisher.cc wrote:
I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is
only
peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many objections.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do
net
metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more
new
installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they
would
only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale
prices
for everyone who is backfeeding.
I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ by state...
73,
Burns W2BFJ
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not
the
beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it
right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square
foot
and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof
design
figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is
considered
0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
than
a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my
other
three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I
had
to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch
to
inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help
lift
it
into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
there
were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more
and
SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the
total
installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily
driven
by
residential installations. Utility-scale installations are
actually
down
5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut
of
production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures
were
not
keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were
going
out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up,
prompting
Elon
Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which
will
produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels
are
expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain
in
efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what
reaches
the
mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the
solar
industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't
necessarily
mean
that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
panels
may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the
equation
and
> they improve. > nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM > To: amsat-bb@amsat.org > Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) > > Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and
for
your
> house: > > http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png >
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views
of
AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Wouter Weggelaar wouterweg@gmail.com wrote:
- There is no reason in The Netherlands to not have extra renewable energy
sources. I really don't know how your "fossil fuel industry's opposition" can keep you from putting solar panels on your roof. I think everyone should!
Here in Italy we have a good amount of sunshine, yet the power companies (and local laws) do what they can to discourage renewable energy (it's not as convenient as it should be yet).
A - they sensed each other as valid grid voltage, leaving an engineer unable to cut the power on a section of line. There was no way to shut these suckers off in case you need to work at the substation safely
grids still are too "old" in this respect, they expect to have a "one way" direction for power flow, which is obviously not the case since some years now. To safely work on a piece of grid, it must be "cut" in more than one part.
B - the grid frequency (50Hz here) would run away upwards until there were MOSFets flying everywhere. We literally had a dozen kill themselves when we did that experiment. It was huge fun though, hearing them scream ;)
all line inverters that I know have safe limits for grid frequency, and after frequency crosses one of those limits, they just shut down the power.
Lastly, unfortunately my country is still pathetic in using solar power. we should really be doing more here and world-wide. Yes, we peaked at 100%, for a very short time though ;)
one good thing that european laws must do is to force all nations to make all is worth to permit more renewable energy generation. I think this isn't going to happen, at least soon, in my opinion.
73 Frank IZ8DWF
Lastly, unfortunately my country is still pathetic in using solar power. we should really be doing more here and world-wide. Yes, we peaked at 100%, for a very short time though ;)
Don't forget that that 100% was when Germany was dumping their excess solar and wind power on the Dutch grid for free, if the Germans had not done their their own grid would have collapsed.
73 de Andre PE1RDW
After a certain number of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net metering. .. They are usually getting [solar] power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.
Not true at all except on talk radio and fossil fuel funded stink tanks.
The price of electricity varies minute-by-minute over a factor of ten-to-one during each day based on the minute by minute supply and demand. Consumers pay a "fixed" rate that is 10% over the average cost to assure the utilities make their PSC guaranteed profits. But the truth is that when the utility is paying me solar net-meter rates (1-to-1 at that average consumer rate) the utility is actually getting a GREAT deal because otherwise on sunny summer days when they are having to buy very dirty high cost peaking electricity at ten to 20 times the standard rate to avoid a brownout, they are still gettting my solar at only the 1-to-1 fixed rate. That distributed solar power that the utility gets for 1-to-1 when they need it *most* is more than enough to pay the small distribution cost my solar system is avoiding.
So don't be fooled by the very deep pocket disinformation from the fossil fueled stink tanks.
They are usually getting [solar] power that they have to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.
The opposite is true. Solar peaks at the same time that Air conditioning load peaks and we ll know that such brownouts are always in the summer. So they are actually always getting cheap solar-net-metered power when the DO need it most.
Problem is the narrow-minded foolish politicians in many backward states believe this propaganda from the fossil fuel industry hook, line and sinker and are eating away at the benefits of net metering just to maintain the status quo and their monopoly on the grid.
And if you still don't believe it, just witness our local BG&E. When you get a regular smart meter, they automatically will PAY EVERY consumer on their system TEN TIMES the normal rate for every kWh they do NOT use during these peak summer days! Normally our rate is 14 cents per kwH. But during peak summer loads, they will pay $1.50 per kWh that you do NOT use. There is the proof as to how much electricity really costs when it is needed most... yet they get my solar (net metered) for just the same 14 cents and are very definitely enjoying it.
How do they know what you are NOT using? SImple, the smart meter knows your average load on such days and hence, if you dont use that much on any given brownout day you get this TEN-to-ONE premium credit. A good time to go to the beach.... Typically people who turn things off or go to the beach get a $10 to $20 credit for each such day.
So don't believe everything you hear from talk radio and the stink tanks...
Bob, WB4APR
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
screw up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)... Remember statics and dynamics?? ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is considered 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster than a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX, there were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
about
20
gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
by
residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
down
5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were
not
keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
out
of
business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
Elon
Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
the
mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
mean
that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
panels
may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
and
they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
your
house:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
You're paying 14 cents per KWh.....Holy crap!!!!
My current provider is charging me 2.6 cents per KWh if I stay under 2000KWh per month and 4.5 cents if I go over.
Glenn WB5TUF
And if you still don't believe it, just witness our local BG&E. When you get a regular smart meter, they automatically will PAY EVERY consumer on their system TEN TIMES the normal rate for every kWh they do NOT use during these peak summer days! Normally our rate is 14 cents per kwH. But during peak summer loads, they will pay $1.50 per kWh that you do NOT use. There is the proof as to how much electricity really costs when it is needed most... yet they get my solar (net metered) for just the same 14 cents and are very definitely enjoying it.
On 03/01/16 01:17, Glenn Anderson wrote:
You're paying 14 cents per KWh.....Holy crap!!!!
My current provider is charging me 2.6 cents per KWh if I stay under 2000KWh per month and 4.5 cents if I go over.
Here in Australia we pay 22.24 cents per Kwh. Most electricity retailers pay a feed-in tariff of 8 cents per Kwh. Fortunately, we got in early and receive 44 cents per Kwh. We have never paid for electricity, and since we only use 1.2 Khw per day from the grid we instead receive a small income.
participants (7)
-
Andre -
Burns Fisher -
Francesco Messineo -
Glenn Anderson -
Phil -
Robert Bruninga -
Wouter Weggelaar