We Need a German Plan

[CA_Tom]

Before they decided to go green a Kwh cost was around 9-cents and CA imported roughly 11% of their power from neighboring states. 15 to years later today they import 35% of their power and pay 100% more. CA is now enslaved by their neighboring states.

The general consensus is that the vast majority of the rate increases that CA customers have seen is due to Enron's illegal activities.
If you're not familiar with CA's energy crisis and the Enron scandal, I suggest you go do some reading on it.

Your implication that it's due to the use of RE is just absurd.
How much of the energy that CA uses is from solar PV or wind?
1% solar, 5% wind.

https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/861a514f-a20b-4548-9526-66ce424b3baa/2010_SCE_PowerContentLabel.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Now, even if the suppliers for the solar and wind power were charging so much that they gave the utility company $0 profit (not likely - but let's just say they do) - that would decrease the utility companies' profits by only 6%. Or put another way, the utility would only have to increase their rates by ~6% to maintain the same profitability - assuming $0 profit.

Oh - and I almost forgot - there's also the amount that they already had back in 1998 for renewables - 1.1% for wind and 0.3% solar.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2000-04-14_300-00-004.PDF

So not even 6% - more like 4.5%

It's obvious you have a huge grudge against solar PV for some reason. If you're going to throw around allegations about how CA's rate increases are due to RE, try to have your argument have some basis in reality.

[russ]

The general consensus is that the vast majority of the rate increases that CA customers have seen is due to Enron's illegal activities.
If you're not familiar with CA's energy crisis and the Enron scandal, I suggest you go do some reading on it.

15 years on and you guys are still blaming Enron? Come on!

[CA_Tom]

15 years on and you guys are still blaming Enron? Come on!

My understanding is that the contracts are 20 year contracts. So it certainly seems reasonable to me to point to that as a significant cause 12 years later.

I think another significant impact on some ratepayers is the issues the nuclear plant down south had - I think that cost quite a bit and didn't generate enough power to pay for the improvements they did (or tried to do).

If you think it's because of solar PV or wind power, please free to share the numbers for how you came to that conclusion.

Because the numbers I shared above show that assertion is absurd.

[russ]

If you think it's because of solar PV or wind power, please free to share the numbers for how you came to that conclusion.

Because the numbers I shared above show that assertion is absurd.

The numbers you shared? One of the new age terms I find cute - you repeat something off the net and say shared.

I have not said that it was due to RE - however it has a lot more to do with CA politics than anything else - the dependence on importing out of state power is one big cause.

[J.P.M.]

Similar to a lot or maybe even most people, I selfishly want power plants located as far away from me as possible. Maybe if I'm different at all, it's only that I may realize in some sense that luxury can only come with a price, not only in $$, but in the opportunities it opens up for people with money to make or political power to manipulate. People in CA and elsewhere bitch about electic rates and that's all they ever do. You want nice, you pay nice. If people really want to pay less, one way to start might be by wasting less, turning off some stuff and getting a clue about conservation.

[CA_Tom]

The numbers you shared? One of the new age terms I find cute - you repeat something off the net and say shared.

regardless of whether you think it is "new age" or "cute", it is a normal usage of the word.
People have used the word "share" to mean telling someone something since long before there was an internet.
For example people have been "sharing" at AA meetings for a long long time.
And I'd be willing to bet that isn't the first place "share" was used with that meaning.
If it bothers you so much, feel free to mentally substitute "posted" or "wrote" in place.

I have not said that it was due to RE - however it has a lot more to do with CA politics than anything else - the dependence on importing out of state power is one big cause.

You certainly strongly implied it:

sensij: "No signs of enslavement that I can see, or support for the idea that RE policy is responsible for escalating rates."
russ: "Santa Claus pays for RE?"

So are you now saying that the rate increases largely weren't due to RE?
If you aren't, then please provide your reasoning.

[russ]

If people really want to pay less, one way to start might be by wasting less, turning off some stuff and getting a clue about conservation.

100% agreed - conservation will do far more than wind or solar will do - the kWh not used is the "greenest" power you can find!

[Sunking]

The general consensus is that the vast majority of the rate increases that CA customers have seen is due to Enron's illegal activities.
If you're not familiar with CA's energy crisis and the Enron scandal, I suggest you go do some reading on it.

By all definitions that is enslavement. It was allowed to happen because CA cannot generate their own energy. That allows neighboring states to charge whatever they want and CA cannot do anything about it except pay or go dark. If those contracts were illegal, they are not binding. Yes I know what Enron did, I made a lot of money in cap gains and got out before the crash.

[inetdog]

Yes I know what Enron did, I made a lot of money in cap gains and got out before the crash.

Fortunately if the company was doing something shady and you knew that, but any reasonable person should also have known that, your timing is considered good judgement rather than insider trading.
I both respect you for your savvy and as a Californian illogically hate you because of your indirect connection with Enron.

[Sunking]

Fortunately if the company was doing something shady and you knew that, but any reasonable person should also have known that, your timing is considered good judgement rather than insider trading.
I both respect you for your savvy and as a Californian illogically hate you because of your indirect connection with Enron.

Just dumb luck. When I bought it did not know what was going on, when I caught wind of what was going on dumped it so someone else gets caught holding the bag. Learned my lesson back in crash of 1987 when I went bankrupt not to trust Brokers. Bought the playbook Brokers use to learn how to play the game and have since done all my own investing. One trick is I have Stop Loss Sales Order on every stock I own.

[jimqpublic]

Regarding demand and usage:
Here in California my residential demand peak is on hot summer afternoons. That is also fairly close to the potential solar output peak. Even if my air conditioner isn't running, one in the neighborhood may be.

Comparing my hourly use over the past year to PVWatts model for a 5 KW, south facing system I find the following hourly demand numbers:

Hours with more than 4 kWh 154 Without 61 With Solar
Hours with more than 5 kWh 74 Without 17 With Solar
Hours with more than 6 kWh 15 Without 2 With Solar

Min hourly kWh 0.26 Without -3.68 With Solar
Max hourly kWh 7.44 Without 6.90 With Solar

Based on that, my load on the "grid" goes down quite a bit with solar.

If I rotate the proposed system to an azimuth of 225, the numbers go to:

Hours with more than 4 kWh 154 Without 48 With Solar
Hours with more than 5 kWh 74 Without 15 With Solar
Hours with more than 6 kWh 15 Without 1 With Solar

Min hourly kWh 0.26 Without -3.69 With Solar
Max hourly kWh 7.44 Without 6.52 With Solar

It makes economic sense to me as well because pretty much every KWh of power to run that air conditioner costs me $0.32. Making the 5 KW draw AC cost about $1.50/hour.

[sensij]

Regarding demand and usage:

Comparing my hourly use over the past year to PVWatts model for a 5 KW, south facing system I find the following hourly demand numbers:

Hours with more than 4 kWh 154 Without 61 With Solar
Hours with more than 5 kWh 74 Without 17 With Solar
Hours with more than 6 kWh 15 Without 2 With Solar

Min hourly kWh 0.26 Without -3.68 With Solar
Max hourly kWh 7.44 Without 6.90 With Solar

Based on that, my load on the "grid" goes down quite a bit with solar.

If I rotate the proposed system to an azimuth of 225, the numbers go to:

Hours with more than 4 kWh 154 Without 48 With Solar
Hours with more than 5 kWh 74 Without 15 With Solar
Hours with more than 6 kWh 15 Without 1 With Solar

Min hourly kWh 0.26 Without -3.69 With Solar
Max hourly kWh 7.44 Without 6.52 With Solar

That sounds pretty consistent with TOU models I've been looking at. If you have the ability to choose any azimuth you'd like for your system, west facing tends to improves $ / kWh for TOU plans, while south facing tends to improve overall kWh generated. Somewhere between due south and due west is an optimum for any particular TOU plan, but figuring out exactly what that angle should be requires assumptions about the TOU terms that are hard to predict in the current environment. Shifts in peak and partial peak time periods, along with the rates for each, are very much in play for our SoCal Poco's. As far as I can see, 225 deg is as good a guess as any.

Edit: In the conditions described in this thread, 202° had slightly more value than 246°