Panasonic residential storage

[SunEagle]

As far as I know, the mainstream view, shared by > 90% of climate scientists, is that the our use of fossil fuel is already changing the climate for the worse, and worse changes are in store if we continue burning fossil fuel; see http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

Standard and Poor's warns that global warming may affect the credit ratings of countries:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/

Heck, even oil companies are asking for a carbon tax now! http://www.bloombergview.com/article...s-a-carbon-tax

Like it or not, it seems the world is getting comfortable with the idea of putting a tax on carbon emissions as a way of gently encouraging everyone to reduce use of fossil fuels.

Well I might be in the minority on what to believe on climate change but I also base it on scientific data and not publications from people that will improve their finances by spreading fear.

Yes it is changing and it has changed a lot over 100's of millions of years the Earth has been around without human influence. Concentrations of CO2 were present in much higher levels in the atmosphere when the global temperatures were much lower. Jungles have turned into deserts, ice ages have come and gone, sea levels have gone up and down way before homo sapiens walked this earth.

If the ice caps melts, it provides more paths for shipping. When CO2 increase, plants love it and grow faster. If the world temps increase it will thaw out cold areas and provide more places to grow food and live. Sure those near the sea will get their feet wet so maybe they need to spend money to prevent getting wet instead of building closer to the water and adding foolish taxes that hurt us all.

Temperature changes over the past 150 years have fluctuated but those changes have happened before the CO2 concentrations have changed. Cause and affect usually means what comes first can affect what comes next. Not the other way around.

We are but fleas on a dog and while we can make that dog irritable with our biting the dog will continue to develop without any help from us.

Maybe its time to go back to the mother ship.

[Sunking]

As far as I know, the mainstream view, shared by > 90% of climate scientists, is that the our use of fossil fuel is already changing the climate for the worse, and worse changes are in store if we continue burning fossil fuel; see http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

LOL. The UN is the source of the GW scam in an attempt to gain power and control

Standard and Poor's warns that global warming may affect the credit ratings of countries:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilve...limate-change/

That I agree with as many countries economies would be crippled an dno banks loan money if they think you have horible energy policy and cannot pay them back. Again it is about the UN scam making a grab for power, money, and control.

Heck, even oil companies are asking for a carbon tax now! http://www.bloombergview.com/article...s-a-carbon-tax

Carbon TAX is DOA, Dem controlled Congress and Senate told Nobama to shove it up his arse. [/QUOTE]That is just Public Relations, and oil companies kno wfull well it will never happen. It just sounds good to the public and pure PR play. Just like when Buffet and Gates both say they support higher income taxes on the wealthy because they now full well does not effect the wealthy or themselves. Gates, Buffet and the wealthy do not earn wages or salaries, thus they pay very little to no income taxes. Well Buffet does get paid $100K a year as CEO, but that is just a gesture. That is why he says his secretary pays a higher tax rate because she is paid $250K/year in salary. He is asking to raise her taxes, no this. Both Gates and Buffet have their wealth where the goberment cannot get at it tied up in Trust, Investments, and overseas investments not subject to US taxes.

[DanKegel]

Except for your fear of the future why should we stop fossil fuel usage when it is still cheap and does keep people in a job?

As far as I know, the mainstream view, shared by > 90% of climate scientists, is that the our use of fossil fuel is already changing the climate for the worse, and worse changes are in store if we continue burning fossil fuel; see http://www.un.org/climatechange/the-science/

Standard and Poor's warns that global warming may affect the credit ratings of countries:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/

Heck, even oil companies are asking for a carbon tax now! http://www.bloombergview.com/article...s-a-carbon-tax

Like it or not, it seems the world is getting comfortable with the idea of putting a tax on carbon emissions as a way of gently encouraging everyone to reduce use of fossil fuels.

[SunEagle]

Thousands of workers in the candle-making industry were displaced when Edison invented the lightbulb. Oh the horror. Suppose we should have stopped that too.

And if we find a cure for cancer, I'm guessing the pharmacutical industries will see a major hit to their profit and loss statements also. So we should stop looking for that cure now, because, you know, change and progress are bad and this country was built by those who scream "WE CAN'T!" at the top of their lungs.

Except for your fear of the future why should we stop fossil fuel usage when it is still cheap and does keep people in a job?

And if we do stop what are you going to use to power our nation at night? If you think it will be batteries you are dreaming.

RE is not something that can replace existing power generation 100% so comparing it to a lightbulb displacing the candle is ludicrous.

We need to add RE to our existing power generation system because it is enlarging the portfolio which provides more options and better chances of maintaining electrical power 24/7 should the weather turn against using solar.

[kevcor620]

Know what the USA looks like without O&G? You cannot imagine the horror. .

Thousands of workers in the candle-making industry were displaced when Edison invented the lightbulb. Oh the horror. Suppose we should have stopped that too.

And if we find a cure for cancer, I'm guessing the pharmacutical industries will see a major hit to their profit and loss statements also. So we should stop looking for that cure now, because, you know, change and progress are bad and this country was built by those who scream "WE CAN'T!" at the top of their lungs.

[Sunking]

Fossil fuel producers have no cries of being treated unfairly when they receive their $577 Billion in government subsidies compared to the $43 Billion for renewable energy.

This is just a plain uniformed statement.

Do you know who makes the most money from fossil fuels?

I did not think so because you said the fossil fuel related companies already, and that is false.

It is the state and federal governments who make the windfall profits. If we only speak of gasoline and diesel fuel road taxes on average we are looking at a profit of 50-cents cents per gallon paid to government. California alone gets 45 cents per gallon in state road fuel taxes.

Let's not even discuss Royalty money paid to the government for all federal land and off shore oil pumped up out of the ground, or corporate and income taxes paid by the O&G industry and those 200K plus well paid employees.

Know what the USA looks like without O&G? You cannot imagine the horror. What happens if no solar? No one would notice, certainly not the government as solar does not generate tax revenue or profits to tax from generating energy. Just a liability on the poor.

[kevcor620]

What jobs? It is contract labor with the majority using undocumented laborers not paying income taxes, or low paid workers who pay no income taxes. GC's and/or Installation owners do not pay income taxes because they do not get paid salaries or wages like blather mouths Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. They depend on wage earners to pay income taxes and think they should pay more. The real money is equipment manufacturing which goes to China who the USA is at war with.

Net Metering and mandated utility rebates cost electric rate payers real money every month with artificially inflated electric rates.

All that is going to come out during the POTUS elections after the primaries and candidates are selected. Going to fun to watch.

It is simply amusing to see utility lackeys cry how "unfair" net metering is to the poor, oppressed utility companies.

Is it unfair? Sure, if you take net-metering and judge it as a stand-alone in a perfect world where all else is equal. But that is a fairytale. Fossil fuel producers have no cries of being treated unfairly when they receive their $577 Billion in government subsidies compared to the $43 Billion for renewable energy. Utilities are a monopoly that are "regulated" by the politicians that are bought and paid for with their PAC money. Its the closest you can come to the "fox guarding the hen house". Net metering is one small way to allow new and emerging markets to fight their way for a seat at a table in what has been a long time exclusive country club.

As the fat man is feasting on a five course dinner, he's throws the bone from his prime rib down to the floor for the dog. The bone (with hopefully a little meat stuck to it) is net-metering, the dog is the solar company, and the sloth feasting at the table is your beloved utilitiy.

Let's not try to pretend that net-metering is having a substantially negative effect on the profitibility of the utility cartel, and then throw the poor and minorites in the mix (as if you repubs ever cared about them to begin with) to try to garner sympathy for the oil barons. Thanks but no thanks. What you are serving up smells funny, and I'm not going to eat it.

[Sunking]

I'd bet on an extension of some time.....its a job creator and that resonates with politicians and the voters.

What jobs? It is contract labor with the majority using undocumented laborers not paying income taxes, or low paid workers who pay no income taxes. GC's and/or Installation owners do not pay income taxes because they do not get paid salaries or wages like blather mouths Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. They depend on wage earners to pay income taxes and think they should pay more. The real money is equipment manufacturing which goes to China who the USA is at war with.

Net Metering and mandated utility rebates cost electric rate payers real money every month with artificially inflated electric rates.

All that is going to come out during the POTUS elections after the primaries and candidates are selected. Going to fun to watch.

[DanS26]

That is ho wit should work, and how all businesses work. Utilities do not need your power, they can buy all they want at wholesale prices from cogens and other interconnected utilities. Net metering forces utilites to charge everyone higher prices to make up for the losses of net metering. Basically welfare for the rich who can afford solar without any help from net metering and subsidies.

Just wait it will be an issue durin gPTUS elections and th egroups who make a stink about it will not be conservatives, but become a wining debate for conservative with minority voters. Many minority groups (Blacks and Hispanic) are steaming mad now that they have learned they are paying for solar, and not being able to get free stuff.

Going to be fun watching dems defend it.

I'm perfectly satisfied with my net billing arrangement, but it is all predicated on being a low cost producer. I'm a low cost producer because I built my system myself so I avoided the labor cost, but the real help was the 30% renewable energy credit.

Whether this 30% credit is allowed to expire or be continued is still up in the air. The White House budget has it scheduled as a permanent extension and I know a 5 year extension is being discussed in Congress. Growth in the solar industry hangs in the balance.

I'd bet on an extension of some time.....its a job creator and that resonates with politicians and the voters.

[Sunking]

Here in the midwest there are a lot of private utilities (mainly REMC's) that do not have to comply with net metering. Most use a system called net billing which means I sell my excess production during the day at wholesale but buy that power back at night at retail.

That is ho wit should work, and how all businesses work. Utilities do not need your power, they can buy all they want at wholesale prices from cogens and other interconnected utilities. Net metering forces utilites to charge everyone higher prices to make up for the losses of net metering. Basically welfare for the rich who can afford solar without any help from net metering and subsidies.

Just wait it will be an issue durin gPTUS elections and th egroups who make a stink about it will not be conservatives, but become a wining debate for conservative with minority voters. Many minority groups (Blacks and Hispanic) are steaming mad now that they have learned they are paying for solar, and not being able to get free stuff.

Going to be fun watching dems defend it.

[kevcor620]

Here in the midwest there are a lot of private utilities (mainly REMC's) that do not have to comply with net metering. Most use a system called net billing which means I sell my excess production during the day at wholesale but buy that power back at night at retail.

Here is my little back of the envelope calculations:

I produce at $.035 per kWh.
I sell wholesale at $.065 per kWh
I buy retail at $.135 per kWh

Now will shifting that excess power to a battery and using it at night make sense? For every kWh I shift I gain $.07. If I shift 4kWh a day as per the battery spec I save a whopping $.28 That's $102 per year savings for a battery costing at least $2000.....19.5 year payback on a device that may last 10 years.

I don't think I'll bite.

and under that "current" scenario, it wouldn't make sense for you. But some of us on the east coast are paying north of $.20 per kWh, and others pay peak rates that are even higher. Yes, the batteries are expensive now, but what will those prices look like in the future? (Remember what a flat screen plasma TV cost ten years ago?) So.....if net metering goes away, or is substantially less than 1:1, I'm just saying there will most likely be a strong market for these batteries. So good for those companies that are far-sighted and will be prepared to meet market demands.

[DanS26]

My guess is that if the U.S. utility cartel is successful in paying off the politicians to elimate or severly dillute net-metering, there will be a clamoring for battery storage from those of us who already invested in solar. Market forces will kick in, and as sudden skyrocketing demand creates the need for more supply (and competition), quality will rise, and prices will drop. Every action has a consequence. Its all a big chess game.

Here in the midwest there are a lot of private utilities (mainly REMC's) that do not have to comply with net metering. Most use a system called net billing which means I sell my excess production during the day at wholesale but buy that power back at night at retail.

Here is my little back of the envelope calculations:

I produce at $.035 per kWh.
I sell wholesale at $.065 per kWh
I buy retail at $.135 per kWh

Now will shifting that excess power to a battery and using it at night make sense? For every kWh I shift I gain $.07. If I shift 4kWh a day as per the battery spec I save a whopping $.28 That's $102 per year savings for a battery costing at least $2000.....19.5 year payback on a device that may last 10 years.

I don't think I'll bite.

[J.P.M.]

My guess is that if the U.S. utility cartel is successful in paying off the politicians to elimate or severly dillute net-metering, there will be a clamoring for battery storage from those of us who already invested in solar. Market forces will kick in, and as sudden skyrocketing demand creates the need for more supply (and competition), quality will rise, and prices will drop. Every action has a consequence. Its all a big chess game.

And just business.

[kevcor620]

My guess is that if the U.S. utility cartel is successful in paying off the politicians to elimate or severly dillute net-metering, there will be a clamoring for battery storage from those of us who already invested in solar. Market forces will kick in, and as sudden skyrocketing demand creates the need for more supply (and competition), quality will rise, and prices will drop. Every action has a consequence. Its all a big chess game.

[Sunking]

B Class actually using a 36kWh capacity battery but only allow charge up to 28kWh. With range extended mode enable battery charges up to 33kWh for addition 15 to 17 miles on top of 87 miles advertised.

Good they are not going anywhere close to the top and staying Mid Balanced. All EV's I know of do that

Mercedes build these EDs for CAFE rule, one ED = two AMG to save $$$$

I see CAFE standards as Extortion made by the US government put in place by the Traitor Jimmy Carter.