Solar Industry Issues/Problems

[bcroe]

As for the lack of conservation, as energy costs go up, the smart ones will figure it out.

A lot of of conservation is happening at the design & manufacturing level. The 19"
color TV here uses 27 W on, and far less than a watt off. It replaced a smaller TV
that used several times that. Perhaps even more important, the old one used 5
watts 24/7 when off, so the remote could work. My old CO detector was warm to
the touch; it was replaced by one running a year on a pair of AA batteries.

Many of us have long been into fluorescent lighting, which could match anything
before LEDs. But we kept enough incandescents around to manage below zero
temps, waiting for the fluorescents to warm up. Bruce Roe

[JCP]

To be respectfully clear, I'm not alluding to anything. My parenthetical comment had nothing to do with, nor did I intend any sideways reference to (what is, IMO the utility fueled) conversation about non solar users subsidizing solar users. That's a separate matter and FWIW, a smaller issue that is, with enough political will (???), workable thorough rate reform. I'm only stating opinions, mostly about arrogant, self inflicted ignorance. That is not only the bigger, but the biggest problem as I see it.
Like Walt Kelly is credited with writing: "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Alluding: wrong word. I still think that it's going to be a big chunk of the problem on a go forward basis. If solar cost curve does not go down faster, solar will have a bigger problem when the subsidizing stops.

As for the lack of conservation, as energy costs go up, the smart ones will figure it out.

[J.P.M.]

It's true that without Federal subsidies and without net metering, solar would be a money losing proposition. We're still quite a ways away from grid parity. The bigger problem that you're alluding to is that currently, at least in CA, non solar users are effectively subsidizing solar customers since net metering allows solar customers not to pay for the infrastructure. So obviously, this is not really a working long term strategy. Just like I see Tesla cars all around on the freeway everyday, plenty of people with more money than brain are buying solar all the time. Through solar leases, the solar industry is reaching out to middle income America where I'm going to guess that folks are doing the basic math.

As for the lack of conservation, I can only agree with you. The first thing I've done when I moved in my early 70s house was to tear down sheetrock and install insulation. Then, as LEDs became more affordable, I progressively replaced all the lights in the house with LEDs. I doubt that I'm in the majority on this particular point.

To be respectfully clear, I'm not alluding to anything. My parenthetical comment had nothing to do with, nor did I intend any sideways reference to (what is, IMO the utility fueled) conversation about non solar users subsidizing solar users. That's a separate matter and FWIW, a smaller issue that is, with enough political will (???), workable thorough rate reform. I'm only stating opinions, mostly about arrogant, self inflicted ignorance. That is not only the bigger, but the biggest problem as I see it.
Like Walt Kelly is credited with writing: "We have met the enemy and he is us".

[J.P.M.]

It's true that without Federal subsidies and without net metering, solar would be a money losing proposition. We're still quite a ways away from grid parity. The bigger problem that you're alluding to is that currently, at least in CA, non solar users are effectively subsidizing solar customers since net metering allows solar customers not to pay for the infrastructure. So obviously, this is not really a working long term strategy. Just like I see Tesla cars all around on the freeway everyday, plenty of people with more money than brain are buying solar all the time. Through solar leases, the solar industry is reaching out to middle income America where I'm going to guess that folks are doing the basic math.

As for the lack of conservation, I can only agree with you. The first thing I've done when I moved in my early 70s house was to tear down sheetrock and install insulation. Then, as LEDs became more affordable, I progressively replaced all the lights in the house with LEDs. I doubt that I'm in the majority on this particular point.

000

[JCP]

I strongly believe and support the idea that people should be allowed the freedom to do what they want, make good/bad decisions, whatever, regardless of what I think. That said:

To me this is all about the ubiquitous thread of cost effectiveness. If you want to save the planet - Use less. Do that and the planet will save itself.

As for the opinions expressed in your post (which opinions I respect):

1.) Like the broad brush of saying the current net metering system makes a solar installation cost effective ? Maybe, maybe not. IMO, not usually.

2.) Solar energy MAY or MAY NOT be cost effective for any particular situation. Net metering helps (in the parochial, my money/bill/house, screw everyone else sense), but of the 50+ installs I know about in my HOA, so far, as best as I can determine, depending on any realistic time frame and assumptions about the future, not one, including mine, has produced a LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Electricity) below that of the POCO supplied power without solar, net metering included. It is possible to get to cost effectiveness (grid parity using LCOE comparisons to situations without solar as the criterion), but usually these systems - the one's in my HOA - are so oversized they replace too much low tier stuff.
Without net metering solar is financial insanity at this time. With it, it's usually only cost ignorant or ineffective, at least in San Diego county. I've given up trying to explain that to my neighbors along with any conversation about life cycle costing. My opinion may also be parochial, but I believe it's a common situation.

3.) My experience leads me to an opposite opinion from yours as to people's ability to do simple math. I find most folks to be mentally slothful or afflicted with math phobia or both. Not stupid, just an abundance of ignorance borne of laziness.

4.) To the degree my opinions in 3.) above reflect reality, I'd conclude that most folks lack the (only somewhat advanced) analytical skills and tools necessary to analyze their situation in a detached, objective way - two prerequisites I'd suggest necessary for accurately formulating a guess at cost effectiveness.

5.) Most people are crowd followers. Solar is trendy among the affluent. The most common situation I see is people ignorantly putting the cart before the horse. i.e., before conservation measures that are much more cost effective and throwing money at a bloated energy bill by installing what is almost always too much of the least cost effective method of reducing that bill - i.e., solar electricity. The most common reasons I hear is to get even w/the POCO for a self inflicted high bill - i.e. a knee jerk, expensive treatment of the symptom and not a cure for the problem.

Sort of like subsidizing the food bill for a morbidly obese person and not reducing food intake when a diet & exercise regimen may be more appropriate (and still reducing the food bill BTW).

6.) CA is one of the sunniest places in the U.S. That, coupled with the high utility rates should make solar a no brainer for most of this area. IMO, A sober, detached, dispassionate analysis of most residential situations around here most often leads to a different conclusion. That is almost never done, thought of, or even known to exist. Rather, most sheeple swallow the B.S. from peddlers who often know little more about solar that their marks, and follow/race to keep up with their equally clueless neighbors and get equally screwed.

The freedom to do what we want includes the freedom to get screwed. IMO, that's what most folks are getting mostly due to their self inflicted ignorance. We are our own worst enemies.

My apologies to those who find my opinions offensive, anyone who believes their choices are cost effective, and to the non ignorant among us who are knowingly taking it in the shorts (like me).

It's true that without Federal subsidies and without net metering, solar would be a money losing proposition. We're still quite a ways away from grid parity. The bigger problem that you're alluding to is that currently, at least in CA, non solar users are effectively subsidizing solar customers since net metering allows solar customers not to pay for the infrastructure. So obviously, this is not really a working long term strategy. Just like I see Tesla cars all around on the freeway everyday, plenty of people with more money than brain are buying solar all the time. Through solar leases, the solar industry is reaching out to middle income America where I'm going to guess that folks are doing the basic math.

As for the lack of conservation, I can only agree with you. The first thing I've done when I moved in my early 70s house was to tear down sheetrock and install insulation. Then, as LEDs became more affordable, I progressively replaced all the lights in the house with LEDs. I doubt that I'm in the majority on this particular point.

[J.P.M.]

Talk about a broad brush... In California where KWh are expensive, the current net metering system makes a solar installation cost effective. I think that most people can do simple math and figure out whether solar panels are beneficial or not.

I strongly believe and support the idea that people should be allowed the freedom to do what they want, make good/bad decisions, whatever, regardless of what I think. That said:

To me this is all about the ubiquitous thread of cost effectiveness. If you want to save the planet - Use less. Do that and the planet will save itself.

As for the opinions expressed in your post (which opinions I respect):

1.) Like the broad brush of saying the current net metering system makes a solar installation cost effective ? Maybe, maybe not. IMO, not usually.

2.) Solar energy MAY or MAY NOT be cost effective for any particular situation. Net metering helps (in the parochial, my money/bill/house, screw everyone else sense), but of the 50+ installs I know about in my HOA, so far, as best as I can determine, depending on any realistic time frame and assumptions about the future, not one, including mine, has produced a LCOE (Levelized Cost Of Electricity) below that of the POCO supplied power without solar, net metering included. It is possible to get to cost effectiveness (grid parity using LCOE comparisons to situations without solar as the criterion), but usually these systems - the one's in my HOA - are so oversized they replace too much low tier stuff.
Without net metering solar is financial insanity at this time. With it, it's usually only cost ignorant or ineffective, at least in San Diego county. I've given up trying to explain that to my neighbors along with any conversation about life cycle costing. My opinion may also be parochial, but I believe it's a common situation.

3.) My experience leads me to an opposite opinion from yours as to people's ability to do simple math. I find most folks to be mentally slothful or afflicted with math phobia or both. Not stupid, just an abundance of ignorance borne of laziness.

4.) To the degree my opinions in 3.) above reflect reality, I'd conclude that most folks lack the (only somewhat advanced) analytical skills and tools necessary to analyze their situation in a detached, objective way - two prerequisites I'd suggest necessary for accurately formulating a guess at cost effectiveness.

5.) Most people are crowd followers. Solar is trendy among the affluent. The most common situation I see is people ignorantly putting the cart before the horse. i.e., before conservation measures that are much more cost effective and throwing money at a bloated energy bill by installing what is almost always too much of the least cost effective method of reducing that bill - i.e., solar electricity. The most common reasons I hear is to get even w/the POCO for a self inflicted high bill - i.e. a knee jerk, expensive treatment of the symptom and not a cure for the problem.

Sort of like subsidizing the food bill for a morbidly obese person when they claim their food bills are too high and not reducing food intake when a diet & exercise regimen may be more appropriate (and still reducing the food bill BTW).

6.) CA is one of the sunniest places in the U.S. That, coupled with the high utility rates should make solar a no brainer for most of this area. IMO, A sober, detached, dispassionate analysis of most residential situations around here most often leads to a different conclusion. That is almost never done, thought of, or even known to exist. Rather, most sheeple swallow the B.S. from peddlers who often know little more about solar that their marks, and follow/race to keep up with their equally clueless neighbors and get equally screwed.

The freedom to do what we want includes the freedom to get screwed. IMO, that's what most folks are getting mostly due to their self inflicted ignorance. We are our own worst enemies.

My apologies to those who find my opinions offensive, anyone who believes their choices are cost effective, and to the non ignorant among us who are knowingly taking it in the shorts (like me).

[cph15]

OK - I just saw the university as your address.

My .edu email? Yeah, somehow it still works. It really just forwards emails onto my gmail account anyways.

[russ]

I think rural electrification is very much like solar subsidies... benefits only a very few. Curiously, the greater the solar subsidies become, the more people it will benefit. Follow that thought to its logical extreme... better yet, don't

--mapmaker

The REA was started in 1935 when many more lived in the rural areas and was in the form of loans to rural electrical coops - it allowed farming to make progress and opened up many areas - At that time farming was the backbone of the nation - I can't think of anything farther from solar.

The greater the solar subsidy the more money down the toilet.

[mapmaker]

Roads, rail lines, nuclear, rural electrification - all those benefit the public in general - solar benefits only a very few.

I think rural electrification is very much like solar subsidies... benefits only a very few. Curiously, the greater the solar subsidies become, the more people it will benefit. Follow that thought to its logical extreme... better yet, don't

--mapmaker

[russ]

I agree. And the reason solar is so popular is because the panels are, indeed, beneficial to their bottom line. And the reason for that is subsidies.

I have mixed feelings about that... it's beyond MY ability to imagine a world without subsidies... it's the only world I've known. Roads, rail lines, nuclear, rural electrification, etc.

--mapmaker

Roads, rail lines, nuclear, rural electrification - all those benefit the public in general - solar benefits only a very few.

[mapmaker]

I think that most people can do simple math and figure out whether solar panels are beneficial or not.

I agree. And the reason solar is so popular is because the panels are, indeed, beneficial to their bottom line. And the reason for that is subsidies.

I have mixed feelings about that... it's beyond MY ability to imagine a world without subsidies... it's the only world I've known. Roads, rail lines, nuclear, rural electrification, etc.

--mapmaker

[russ]

No, I'm a manufacturing engineer for a company. I graduate 4 years ago.

OK - I just saw the university as your address.

[JCP]

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that contrary to what you write, the ignorance of the public is part of any short term success the solar industry is enjoying. If people took more time and expended a bit more effort to learn about what they spend multiples of $10K on, they may have a better idea how badly they are usually taking it in the shorts.

The solar industry is no more evil than any other enterprise. They are merely the means of capitalizing on people's self inflicted ignorance. We are, in some ways, our own worst enemies.

Talk about a broad brush... In California where KWh are expensive, the current net metering system makes a solar installation cost effective. I think that most people can do simple math and figure out whether solar panels are beneficial or not.

[J.P.M.]

I see where you are coming from. I also feel that ignorance of the public is holding back the "industry". It is just very difficult to inform the public, whom do not already know or understand solar power about this sort of technology. It is kind of complex and the common person does not even want to learn how to use it, let alone look at any math as to why it could work.

I know product quality can suffer in some cases. But it is a difficult balance between having superior materials, and cost. The main battle I see everyone struggling with is cost. We can't even get anyone to look at a product if its $800-900 when we have electricity already running to our houses. Or have cheaper foreign made products floating around that do not even remotely perform as good, but it doesn't matter if it's cheaper. The public sees price first and ignores anything that comes after.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that contrary to what you write, the ignorance of the public is part of any short term success the solar industry is enjoying. If people took more time and expended a bit more effort to learn about what they spend multiples of $10K on, they may have a better idea how badly they are usually taking it in the shorts.

The solar industry is no more evil than any other enterprise. They are merely the means of capitalizing on people's self inflicted ignorance. We are, in some ways, our own worst enemies.

[Shockah]

No, I'm a manufacturing engineer for a company. I graduate 4 years ago.

M.E., Congratulations!

In my own Company, I've only gone as far as earning the title of SCBSCI.

Self-Certified Butt-Splice-Connector Installer