• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida's solar amendment

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,686
Reaction score
14,475
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just read an article about Florida's new solar amendment, to allow people to lease solar panels.
It is interesting because it addresses one of the main limitations to solar expansion.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/florida-sunshine-state-hard-get-solar-energy/

Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.
State and local govs shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety, and welfare, and to
ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
The article bolded the last sentence as something bad, but it points out the real problem for Utilities from home power generators.
When the Utility is required by law to buy surplus power at greater than the wholesale price,
there is a danger of the bill crossing zero, and thus not covering the fractional cost of the utility grid.
 
longview said:
I just read an article about Florida's new solar amendment, to allow people to lease solar panels.
It is interesting because it addresses one of the main limitations to solar expansion.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/florida-sunshine-state-hard-get-solar-energy/

Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.
State and local govs shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety, and welfare, and to
ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
The article bolded the last sentence as something bad, but it points out the real problem for Utilities from home power generators.
When the Utility is required by law to buy surplus power at greater than the wholesale price,
there is a danger of the bill crossing zero, and thus not covering the fractional cost of the utility grid.
Click to expand...

The basic problem is considering the power delivery infrastructure costs as a percentage of power used.

That 24 hours a day thing might seem like a weird technicality, but it speaks to a real concern for power companies. Utilities don’t just generate electricity. They build the infrastructure—power lines, transmission stations, transformers—that brings it to your house. “All users pay a percentage in their bill to cover the cost of those systems, maintaining that system,” says Jocelyn Durkay, the energy senior policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan policy analysis group based in Denver. “But having a solar rooftop system may result in a customer’s bill being virtually zero.”
Click to expand...

These infrastructure costs should be a fixed (base?) fee for grid connection equipment and its maintenance costs - not based on a percentage of the power actually used. It costs the power company as much (if not more) to supply power infrastructure to a remote hunting camp or seasonal vacation property as it does for a suburban home or business.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The basic problem is considering the power delivery infrastructure costs as a percentage of power used.



These infrastructure costs should be a fixed (base?) fee for grid connection equipment and its maintenance costs - not based on a percentage of the power actually used. It costs the power company as much (if not more) to supply power infrastructure to a remote hunting camp or seasonal vacation property as it does for a suburban home or business.
Click to expand...
Until the government can come up with a compromise where both the utility and the home power generator both come out on the positive,
one side or the other will push back.
When a solar home was $50K, it was reasonable to offer incentives, but a solar home is now below $20 K,
I am still in favor of the tax credit, but the net metering I believe needs to be reconsidered.
 
longview said:
Until the government can come up with a compromise where both the utility and the home power generator both come out on the positive,
one side or the other will push back.
When a solar home was $50K, it was reasonable to offer incentives, but a solar home is now below $20 K,
I am still in favor of the tax credit, but the net metering I believe needs to be reconsidered.
Click to expand...

It seems that the only way that (bolded above) is possible is by having a third party (other non-generating grid users?) providing (subsidizing?) that "positive". This is much the same case as with electric (or hybrid?) cars using roads (infrastructure) funded heavily by (fossil) motor fuel "road use" taxes - they get both tax credits and avoid paying their "fair share" of road use taxes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that the only way that (bolded above) is possible is by having a third party (other non-generating grid users?) providing (subsidizing?) that "positive". This is much the same case as with electric (or hybrid?) cars using roads (infrastructure) funded heavily by (fossil) motor fuel "road use" taxes - they get both tax credits and avoid paying their "fair share" of road use taxes.
Click to expand...
Yep! I see changes in the future in the way we fund infrastructure, if we are to progress forward.
 
longview said:
Yep! I see changes in the future in the way we fund infrastructure, if we are to progress forward.
Click to expand...

That is unlikely to happen under our crony capitalism system which is now pushing for "green" energy and heavily subsidized public transit boondoggles like Amtrak, light rail, subway and bus systems that refuse to cover even basic operational costs with user fares.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is unlikely to happen under our crony capitalism system which is now pushing for "green" energy and heavily subsidized public transit boondoggles like Amtrak, light rail, subway and bus systems that refuse to cover even basic operational costs with user fares.
Click to expand...
I agree, but anyone with any accounting can see the current path is untenable.
We are seeing some push back like Florida and Nevada.
At current prices, solar looks good even as a grid assist.
 
What the article fails to mention is the many members of the utility commidsion in both states,Florida and Nevada are are covert activist for the utility companies.
Dirty oil has got to go.
The utility companies are well subsidized by the government. They didn't put up utility lines at their own expense as the article suggest, that goes back to the rural electrification act during FDR I think. They wouldn't do it without the government subsidizing it.
For them to charge solar consumers at a higher rate is just another ploy to fore stall clean energy replacing dirty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is unlikely to happen under our crony capitalism system which is now pushing for "green" energy and heavily subsidized public transit boondoggles like Amtrak, light rail, subway and bus systems that refuse to cover even basic operational costs with user fares.
Click to expand...

Delusional. Heavily subsidized Amtrak? That's a good one mate! Are you aware that most of the roads you drive on, are paid for, by tax dollars? How does Amtrak fare, percentagewise, to these road subsidies. Maybe .0001%???
 
Amtrak was a little off-topic. It was so ridiculous, I couldn't resist. A number of points here.
1. Solar netmetering customers always pay a fixed fee for grid access.
2. Hardly any renewable customers generate excess. So the vast majority are paying the fixed fee, and some usage fees. If fixed fees are raised, they bear the brunt of high-percentage fixed fee expense, similar to a conservationalist or poor penny pincher. The wealthy benefit as usage fees are held artificially low.
3. Solar is being promoted in most States, because it is a peak load producer. By adding generation during peak hours, Utilities avoid construction of new power plants. This holds everybody's costs down. So in reality, you should be thanking the person that was willing to spend all that up-front money to hold your costs down.

SolarWind_CloseUp.JPG

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I just read an article about Florida's new solar amendment, to allow people to lease solar panels.
It is interesting because it addresses one of the main limitations to solar expansion.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/florida-sunshine-state-hard-get-solar-energy/

Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.
State and local govs shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety, and welfare, and to
ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.
The article bolded the last sentence as something bad, but it points out the real problem for Utilities from home power generators.
When the Utility is required by law to buy surplus power at greater than the wholesale price,
there is a danger of the bill crossing zero, and thus not covering the fractional cost of the utility grid.
Click to expand...

Active solar panels are stupid. If you use passive solar panels (the kind that heats water to supplement your water heater), you don't have to worry about any of this crap. You just get a smaller power bill. So instead of creating more electricity, you consume less. They are cheaper, more reliable, and don't have the massive environmental cost of active solar panels.

Of course ther will be some liberal who will jump all over me for opposing active solar panels, since I'm a conservative and for some liberals that means that any idea I have must be argued against.
 
faithful_servant said:
Active solar panels are stupid. If you use passive solar panels (the kind that heats water to supplement your water heater), you don't have to worry about any of this crap. You just get a smaller power bill. So instead of creating more electricity, you consume less. They are cheaper, more reliable, and don't have the massive environmental cost of active solar panels.

Of course ther will be some liberal who will jump all over me for opposing active solar panels, since I'm a conservative and for some liberals that means that any idea I have must be argued against.
Click to expand...

I have noticed in the last few years there is a third type of home solar electric, solar assist, where you are still grid connected to supply power when
the sun is not shinning, but you ether do not send power back to the grid, or do not get credit for it.
The real savings from photo voltaic solar should be from the electric bill being smaller.
 
faithful_servant said:
Active solar panels are stupid. If you use passive solar panels (the kind that heats water to supplement your water heater), you don't have to worry about any of this crap. You just get a smaller power bill. So instead of creating more electricity, you consume less. They are cheaper, more reliable, and don't have the massive environmental cost of active solar panels.

Of course ther will be some liberal who will jump all over me for opposing active solar panels, since I'm a conservative and for some liberals that means that any idea I have must be argued against.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why somebody might argue against you, since you provided no backup for your assertion. That said, I think there is much more to gain, financially, for simple passive solar, and thermal mass.
HallSittingArea_TileBrick_Redux.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
Amtrak was a little off-topic. It was so ridiculous, I couldn't resist. A number of points here.
1. Solar netmetering customers always pay a fixed fee for grid access.
2. Hardly any renewable customers generate excess. So the vast majority are paying the fixed fee, and some usage fees. If fixed fees are raised, they bear the brunt of high-percentage fixed fee expense, similar to a conservationalist or poor penny pincher. The wealthy benefit as usage fees are held artificially low.
3. Solar is being promoted in most States, because it is a peak load producer. By adding generation during peak hours, Utilities avoid construction of new power plants. This holds everybody's costs down. So in reality, you should be thanking the person that was willing to spend all that up-front money to hold your costs down.

View attachment 67223085

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

^^^This.

I live in FL and watched this play out. The politics were ugly, and this was an attempt to make it economically less attractive for people to go to solar. It's true that the maintenance of infrastructure costs money, but just covering that wasn't what the power companies were going for here.
 
Media_Truth said:
Gee, I wonder why somebody might argue against you, since you provided no backup for your assertion. That said, I think there is much more to gain, financially, for simple passive solar, and thermal mass.
View attachment 67223094
Click to expand...

I've been told by several dimwitted liberals (since I now have to grossly over-explain every time I make a comment, like this, I am referring to the subset of liberals that are dimwits) that I wanted to destroy the planet for supporting passive solar instead of active solar. Not once or twice, but several times across several forums...
 
faithful_servant said:
I've been told by several dimwitted liberals (since I now have to grossly over-explain every time I make a comment, like this, I am referring to the subset of liberals that are dimwits) that I wanted to destroy the planet for supporting passive solar instead of active solar. Not once or twice, but several times across several forums...
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with supporting both. My home is TRUE zero-energy. I have a wind turbine and solar PVs, in addition to the passive solar. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose solar PVs over a residential wind turbine. Why are solar PVs wonderful:
1. They produce at their highest, during peak load periods. This helps Utilities immensely, and prevents construction of additional power plants, holding prices down for everybody. I'm an Electrical Engineer, and I have the background to attest to this statement.
2. They are simple - no moving parts (assuming a non-tracking system) - little to no maintenance.
3. They produce at very high efficiency, well beyond 20 years. Very little efficiency degradation. I know a number of homeowners who have 20+ year systems. They may have lost a little efficiency, but they don't notice.

SolarWind_CloseUp.JPG
 
<alt>doxygen said:
^^^This.

I live in FL and watched this play out. The politics were ugly, and this was an attempt to make it economically less attractive for people to go to solar. It's true that the maintenance of infrastructure costs money, but just covering that wasn't what the power companies were going for here.
Click to expand...

Some of the Utilities in Colorado are employing similar tactics. My Utility has been raising Fixed Fees for the last 6 years, and lowering Usage Fees. Of course, this is very regressive, in that it rewards the wealthy trophy home owner, and penalizes the poor one-room house or trailer dweller. Nothing like the poor subsidizing the rich...
 
Energy
[h=1]Now it’s a war on pipelines[/h]Efforts to block and sabotage pipelines hurt jobs, economic growth, middle class, human safety Paul Driessen The radical environmentalist war on fossil fuels has opened a new front: a war on pipelines. For years, activist zealots claimed the world was rapidly depleting its oil and natural gas supplies. The fracking revolution (horizontal drilling and hydraulic…
 
Media_Truth said:
Some of the Utilities in Colorado are employing similar tactics. My Utility has been raising Fixed Fees for the last 6 years, and lowering Usage Fees. Of course, this is very regressive, in that it rewards the wealthy trophy home owner, and penalizes the poor one-room house or trailer dweller. Nothing like the poor subsidizing the rich...
Click to expand...

Fellow EE here. I'm not an infrastructure guy, though. Building level power management is about as close as I get to that, and that's only been the last couple of years.

I'm going solar within the next 2 years. I don't care if they don't let push anything back onto the grid; I just ask that they don't tax me for what I don't use any more than they do now.

Every infrastructure upgrade has meant a price increase, in any state where I've lived - and that goes back to when I was a little kid listening to my dad complain about it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Energy
[h=1]Now it’s a war on pipelines[/h]Efforts to block and sabotage pipelines hurt jobs, economic growth, middle class, human safety Paul Driessen The radical environmentalist war on fossil fuels has opened a new front: a war on pipelines. For years, activist zealots claimed the world was rapidly depleting its oil and natural gas supplies. The fracking revolution (horizontal drilling and hydraulic…
Click to expand...

About as OFF-TOPIC as you can get. You should read the forum rules.
 
faithful_servant said:
Active solar panels are stupid. If you use passive solar panels (the kind that heats water to supplement your water heater), you don't have to worry about any of this crap. You just get a smaller power bill. So instead of creating more electricity, you consume less. They are cheaper, more reliable, and don't have the massive environmental cost of active solar panels.

Of course ther will be some liberal who will jump all over me for opposing active solar panels, since I'm a conservative and for some liberals that means that any idea I have must be argued against.
Click to expand...

I would like to agree with you, but passive solar water heating has high maintenance costs and is inefficient for the total costs involved. It became the government fad of the 70's, and was slowly removed. You have pump maintenance, and corrosion of pipes to worry about. Making it noncorrosive gets rather expensive.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I have noticed in the last few years there is a third type of home solar electric, solar assist, where you are still grid connected to supply power when
the sun is not shinning, but you ether do not send power back to the grid, or do not get credit for it.
The real savings from photo voltaic solar should be from the electric bill being smaller.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about getting money back for excess solar of I has such a setup. I don't see why people get so worked up about it. It isn't fair, as a supplier, to expect retail prices, and wholesale prices are small normally. I would want to invest in a solar setup just to do may part, and be less dependent on someone else.
 
Media_Truth said:
Gee, I wonder why somebody might argue against you, since you provided no backup for your assertion. That said, I think there is much more to gain, financially, for simple passive solar, and thermal mass.
View attachment 67223094
Click to expand...

He specified the type that heats water...

Passive solar in home design is another great way to go.
 
Media_Truth said:
Nothing wrong with supporting both. My home is TRUE zero-energy. I have a wind turbine and solar PVs, in addition to the passive solar. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose solar PVs over a residential wind turbine. Why are solar PVs wonderful:
1. They produce at their highest, during peak load periods. This helps Utilities immensely, and prevents construction of additional power plants, holding prices down for everybody. I'm an Electrical Engineer, and I have the background to attest to this statement.
2. They are simple - no moving parts (assuming a non-tracking system) - little to no maintenance.
3. They produce at very high efficiency, well beyond 20 years. Very little efficiency degradation. I know a number of homeowners who have 20+ year systems. They may have lost a little efficiency, but they don't notice.

View attachment 67223112
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't understand the benefits of three phase power.
 
Media_Truth said:
About as OFF-TOPIC as you can get. You should read the forum rules.
Click to expand...

Clearly related to the topic.

So the battle increasingly shifted to the far more emotional claim that continued reliance on fossil fuels (which provide over 80% of the US and global energy that powers modern civilization and living standards) will cause dangerous manmade global warming and climate change. This gave birth to the climate and renewable energy consortium and the “keep it in the ground” movement. No evidence to the contrary will budge them from their hysteria-laden talking points on looming climate cataclysms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom