California first state to ban natural gas heaters and furnaces

OK, I'll try to work on that. But, from the point of view of the grid, the solar equipped property is less of a load.

I have resisted calling that home solar a supply, as it is more or less limited to the homeowner. And, I've been repeatedly accused of claiming too much benefit along that line - charges that I think are reasonably legit!

Yes, most people are unlikely to invest enough to carry the whole load.

Another cost effective direction for owning the system is to have it be part of the original construction, as it then becomes part of the long term mortgage and the monthly mortgage increase is definitely less than the savings on electricity at today's rates.

Another even cheaper direction is to contract with one of the companies that will put solar on your home for FREE if you will share the cost benefit of the generated power.

It's hard to google these today, as there are so many programs oriented to reducing the cost of solar installations - advantaged loans, direct subsidies, power buy back programs, etc. After all, it can lead to fewer brownouts caused by peak demand and perhaps reduce the need for building more power plants. So, it is a benefit to encourage home solar.

 

Yeah I was thinking about this point earlier today.

They have to recoup the cost of underutilized infrastructure somehow. Another way would be to charge extra for inconsistent load on low solar days.

Akin to charging a factory a penalty for bad power factor. A practice that might also shift to regular consumers...

 

They don't have to. The default is "no". Education on the topic is increasing. And, no decision is final.

Wow - that is insane. PLEASE CITE. I'd like to know what you found.

Maybe.

For example, we have HALF of congress working HARD to ensure our national infrastructure rots. It IS possible for them to create a catastrophe. They probably can do that if they try hard enough.

Of course, the first signs are going to be increasing prices for electricity - as per capitalism.

 

So, at best an uncertain supply back to the grid.

. There's more but here's a quick overview just pertaining to my local area

Nonsense.

And the way to reduce cost is to increase supply.

 

I punched it in on: https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/sunrise.html
And it gave me the same results, if I'm not nitpicking on the last minute.
So that checks out.

What remains is that you're dishonest about that 4.5 hours. It's more like 9.5 hours.
Your claim I do not know what I am talking about, is just a flat out low personal attack from somebody who is caught being dishonest.

Nobody has ever said that solar panels hit 100% efficiency. Their productivity would be insanely enhanced if they turned with the sun when the earth revolves around the sun, but they don't. About all of them are fixated. I find it.... special... that I need to explain this, to somebody who claims I do not know what I'm talking about. And because of this, it doesn't mean one bit there are about just 4 hours of daylight. That remains to be wrong.

There are all kinds of ways to calculate how much panels you need to sustain the current electricity usage. It's known from the average household what they use, so with that you can estimate the amount of panels needed. That's around 20 ish. An other way of looking at it is how big a house is. Bigger houses use more electricity.

https://www.nexamp.com/blog/how-many-solar-panels-do-i-need

A 15k sqft house needs about 15 panels. 15 solar panels is about 0.3k sq ft
Do you understand how little of the roof is needed for just the electricity and that there still is a heck of a lot of roof that remains to add panels for heating your house?




I note that you previously relentlessly claimed using solar panes is bad, because it heats up the earth, but could not prove how this compares to pumping out CO2. You only sourced that an expert said it's a good idea to use solar panels as far as I can see. And now you've dropped the entire point all together, while claim I do not know what I'm talking about. How about you put on your big boys pants, and admit you could not prove it's worse, and admit it's probably not. the case since the expert you sourced supports solar panels.

 

I accept that chart. I never said otherwise. And I'm not moving the goalpost. I'm just explaining a flaw in that idea to go back to a world with such an environment.
The flaw is that the ecosystem of back in the day that was alive in that environment, IS DEAD AND GONE!
Plants that survived there, aren't around. Animals who ate that, aren't around. Animals who ate those animals, aren't around.
Nothing shows that the plants/animals we got now, will survive in that environment. It's actually flat out a fact that they can't.
It's being proven by how fast things go extinct these days when the climate is changing.

Point debunked about snow on solar panels.

 

It's not an attack to point out that on multiple occasions you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the technology you are promoting. I'm not being dishonest about 4.5 hours. In fact I'm being overly honest considering the actual data collected by the panels I referenced. You just don't know what that figure means. Look at the data collected from the panels. Are you saying the data is lying?

Up until 10 the panel is operating at less than 10% efficiency. So that's 2.5 hours lost in the morning. After 2:30 it drops down below 10% again. So that's 2.5 hours lost in the evening. 9 hours of daylight minus 5 hours of daylight equals 4 hours of solar peak. That's why I used that figure. It's an industry metric that it doesn't appear you are aware of. This is why I claimed it was an example of your lack of knowledge on the subject.

At 8 in the morning the sun is up, but the panel is not producing enough power to turn on a light, let alone a home heater. From 10 to about 2:30 the panel collected more than 80 percent of the total energy collected. Go look at summer values. Look at the huge difference in energy collection. In April he averaged 62KWh per day. Last January it was nearly half that. Not enough energy to heat a house even if you could save 35KWh in a battery for use overnight when you want to actually use that energy to heat your house.

And I find it special that I need to repeatedly explain that the reason you need to heat your home in winter in the first place is due to the lack of solar radiation hitting your state. I just demonstrated using real time data that the math doesn't work out.

You really don't understand what you're talking about. You want to heat your house in the EVENING. You know, that time when your panel is barely producing enough energy to light a light bulb?

I have never said that using solar panels is bad. I have said it's stupid to use them to prevent the Earth from warming.

Big boy pants? Do you feel like this demonstrates your understanding of the concepts you're trying to argue?

 

https://www.turbinegenerator.org/solar/colorado/

 

Yesterday, the panels were producing enough power to energize 36 feet of electric baseboard heater. This is at 12:00pm when everyone is at work...

By 3:30 the energy dropped to just 18 feet.

 

LOL so you move to ecosystem when we're discussing CO2 emissions and a correlation to higher temperatures, as you claimed. Now it's we have the wrong plants, lol. Glad to know snow doesn't get on solar panels, I guess the wind always turn windmills too and Santa is real, and the world ends in 12 years. All things that have the same amount of truth associated with them.

I give up Fangbeer has given you the data, I've attempted to give you a lick of common sense due to me designing, building and selling thousands of equipment that uses solar panels every year. If I were you, I would move to the Colorado mountains, and only hook up solar panels for energy. You would certainly prove your point then.

 

My mind is filled with images of a Darwin award candidate scurrying around 25 feet up on an iced up roof in the winter trying to clear 56.5 inches of annual snow off his solar panels without scratching or cracking them.

 

https://www.familyhandyman.com/arti...c baseboard heater,as the primary heat source.

This site recommends 10 watts of power per square foot for electric heat. A 15k sqft house thus requires 150,000 watts of power to heat. That's 150KW. More than 15X larger than the panel array from the database and that 10KW array is 30 panels, not 15. If you want to run it for 2 hours a day you'd have to collect 300KWh per day! That's ten times more energy that the solar panel I referenced collected all January! If you wanted to run it at night when it's actually cold you'd need over $100k worth of batteries.

I assume notme meant 1.5ksqft. That would be 15KW of electric heater. That's still half again larger than the panel array I referenced. Still a bad idea.

 

The load on the grid isn't a certainty today. If it is hot outside, the load will be higher. It it is night, the load will be lower. If it is really cold, it may be higher. Etc.

If a community increases the amount of home solar, the volatility in load could be reduced, as it could address the spike that comes from people returning home from work - especially during temperature extremes.

Yes. Also, we need to improve the grid.

Home solar, home insulation and design, etc. are other ways to reduce demand for grid power.

We've become more dependent on the grid than we have to be. Of course, we'll always need power from the grid.

 

No no no.

The load is still volatile. The panels supply energy to the grid. This is added to base energy. THIS HAS ZERO EFFECT ON THE LOAD! THE LOAD STILL GOES UP AND DOWN BY EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.

Of important note, the panel peaks at a much different time than peak demand (Noon vrs 4pm) and they are inconsistent from day to day. So having them contribute to supply it makes it harder for the intermediate suppliers to judge what the base will be on any given day.

 

Imagine a water tower that everyone in town drinks from. Everyone's domestic plumbing connects to the tower, including your own. You can use your solar panel to pump water into the tower, but it has no effect on how many people are drinking water from the tower at any given moment. It has no effect on the rate that the water company has to regulate its own pumps to keep the tower from overflowing, or running dry. The only effect it has is on the rate of flow that the water company's pumps never dip below. Because to make the analogy match better with electrical energy, there's a line on the tower that the water must remain at in order for water to flow at the correct pressure to everyone's house.

The solar panel doesn't add energy to the grid that can be used at some point later. It's used immediately as it is delivered. If there's more supply than demand at any given point the power company has to react and adjust immediately. If there's too little supply to meet demand, the power company has to react and adjust immediately. Adding more energy to the grid with a solar panel doesn't change the amount the power company has to do that.

 

OK, this is the same old problem we've had before. I don't believe this topic can be discussed without drawing a line at the grid meter, so one can discuss the use and production on the home owner side of the meter as well as the load as detected on the grid side of the meter.

From the grid perspective, the perspective on which public decisions on grid power production are based, the load of interest is what is being shown by a meter on the property.

That meter turns more slowly if there is solar on the property - even if there is no way for the private solar electricity to make its way to the grid. It's just as if the home and its residents became more energy conscious.

From the grid perspective, the load does still go up and down, but the existence of solar on the opposite side of the meter CAN be used by the home owner to moderate volatility seen by the grid, especially when the solar system includes a battery. Such systems can rely less on grid power during hours of peak use, thus modulating the load that the grid detects by its meter.

And, grid pricing helps modulate load, too. Solar systems use this information. So do humans. Even EVs are aware of grid pricing schedules, so you can plug in the EV and it will wait until grid price goes down before charging.

 

When you load your local system, whether or not you are delivering energy to the grid, the rate that your meter speeds up and slows down is reflected directly to the grid. It's the difference in energy from one moment to the next that appears as load on the grid. On days when your panel is productive, this has the effect of shifting base supply upward. Power companies have to reduce their base supply in response. On days when your panel is not productive this shifts the base supply downward. Power companies have to increase their base supply in response. Base generation does not easily shift. That means the intermediate and peak generators have to pick up the slack when your panel is not producing. This is not a big deal when there are few independent solar supplies. This is a complex problem when there are many. Add to that the fact that you have to sacrifice efficiency to gain adjustability and it turns out what you're doing is dropping the more efficient base generation plants out of the loop.

Just look at this output from a partly cloudy day.

https://pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=92208&sid=81512&dt=20221023

It's all over the place. It's supply that the power company doesn't have to produce, but the power company has to make sure grid energy perfectly matches demand while hundreds of random homes are adding energy that looks like that. If this was the actual consumer delivered supply instead of just a single random home, it would mean they have to fire up their diesel generators at 1pm, shut them back off at 2, back on at 4...etc. The watts entering the grid have to match the watts leaving the grid every single moment.

Another problem that I haven't mentioned yet is that the inverters produce somewhat dirty waveforms. They can't produce an analog voltage sine wave that's perfectly in phase with the analog current they deliver, as they are digital. As more systems like that come online, the power companies are going to have a harder time compensating for that as well, as it can have terrible effect on power factor. You'll have no trouble turning on your oven, but your fridge won't start, your computer will freak out, your water pump will have a heart attack.

 

Yes. The meter is what the grid sees. That is ALL it sees.

That meter will turn at different rates for various reasons fully dependent on what's going on behind the meter. That meter doesn't even slightly care about the efficiency of what you are doing behind the meter.

Yes, weather is one of the factors affecting what happens behind the meter. Today, when there is no solar system, load will be less if it is cloudy, since the homeowner will run the AC less. So, if it was sunny yesterday and not sunny today, our grid has to deal with that. Also, the grid has to deal with the spike surrounding the times people arrive home from work.

Also, what customers do on sunny days vs. cloudy days is very different. Some folks turn on the AC full bore, because they are wealthy and they like it to be 65 inside. Some spend more time outside. Some do laundry at different times, simply because it's too hot.

As you point out, there is an averaging that goes on across all the meters on some section of the grid.

Absolutely.

In cases I know of, a homeowner that wants to get paid for providing power to the grid has to install equipment that is certified to supply power that meets the quality requirements of the grid - frequency control, etc. I don't know how expensive that is. If you are buying a Tesla solar + battery system I think that's just part of the package.

It might be noted at this point that once someone is considering home solar, home battery storage, supplying quality power to the grid, power from the grid and the panel for controlling all the factors concerning how electricity can flow, such a complete system IS an investment! I think a Tesla system using panels (not their solar roof) is $11K and up. I think the main thing that "up" means is adding a second 13.5 kwh battery.

 

You first claimed the sun got 4.5 useable hours, and than sourced the data "Sunrise today in Littleton was 7.29AM. The sun will set at 5:58 PM."
I also checked out if the data is sound. The data is indeed not lying, and it disputes your argument. The sun shines longer than 4.5. It's all used.

The same thing happened with solar panels, where your expert supports the use of solar panels.... while you argued to not use them because of some irrational unfounded claim.

Ah... moving the goalpost from 4.5 hours of useable sun light to "solar peak" of 4 hours.

They invented the battery a while ago.

It remains you failed to prove it, while you did source an expert's opinion to go for it.
Hilarious.

 

I didn't drag in the CO2 levels of millions of years ago. The discussion of that ecosystem is part of replying that going back to that era is a very bad idea.

I said even a caveman knows how to remove snow from a solar panel, where it was opted by a poster that it's an issue when that happens as if you can't remove it.

Fangbeer sourced an expert that was promoting solar panels, while he argued it's not a good idea.
That's rather special.

 

Who needs a lesson in math? Not me. 80% of the power generated by the panel happened in those 4 hours. Beyond that, with math & real time data I obliterated your claim that 15 panels can generate enough power to heat your massive 15,000 square foot house. It doesn't even generate enough power to heat a 1500 square foot house at 10 watts per square foot. You've been disputed, but you're so disconnected from the technology that you don't yet have the knowledge necessary to realize that you've been disputed.

Support the use of != use them to heat your home in winter. That's what I'm arguing. I also support the use of solar panels. I do not support the use of them to heat your home in winter. It's a stupid idea that will result in you freezing to death.

No goal posts moved. I can't even get you in the stadium to see them.

Yup. Pricey.

https://sunwatts.com/60-kwh-solar-battery/

Of course, if you use all the power they store during the night when any reasonable person would use them, then they will be empty in the morning. If you have a day like that poor guy had last week when he generated less than a single KW you're screwed the next night. No heat for you. Hope your pipes don't freeze.

If I can't even get you in the stadium how can anyone succeed or fail?

 

Well the state is run by morons supported by morons.

 

And the meter will be more volatile, not less. Your energy use is fairly regular. Your energy production is all over the place.

So again the meter will cause the base supply to raise somewhat, and the base load to reduce somewhat. The base is the amount of energy that you always use, no matter what. but the variability above the base will be much greater because the grid still sees the variability of your use through the meter, AND it sees the variability of your supply through the meter.

Whether your panel is making more energy than you consume, or less, it makes no difference. It's the sum of the two that we want to make flatter. That would be less volatility. Flat energy use can be served by efficient power generators producing flat energy levels all day, every day. Solar panels can't do that. They don't flatten the balance of use & supply. Solar panels increase the need for more on demand energy generation to regulate the volatile energy they are able to produce. On demand energy generation is inefficient, dirty. (Even solar systems with batteries.)

Solar panels are good for power generation for things that can take place when the solar panel is making power. Use them to pump water to irrigate a farmer's field. Use them to charge your laptop, cell phone, and EV. Use them to generate energy for your off grid home, or RV. These things you can match your use to their supply.

Don't use them to heat your home in winter. There's two big reasons. The first is practical. Heat in the winter must be reliable. Solar panels are not. The second is systematic. They make the grid less efficient when you use the energy you give to the grid at some different time than you gave it.

 

I don't agree with that. I'd need to see real evidence.

Our utilities know about and plan for the spikes that occur at key times of day (morning, home from work, etc.), the differences between weekends and holidays, the changes due to human behavior during different weather, etc.

That is, there is already a grid capability to take care of significant differences.

That pattern might become more dependent on weather, as the home/building might add more load to the grid on days where solar supplies less.

But, suggesting that means "all over the place" isn't justified.

In fact as I've pointed out, solar capability behind the meter can moderate the spikes that occur in mornings and late afternoon/early evening.

In CA, there is even a program that allows the grid to use a percentage of home power generation in order to handle emergencies that might otherwise become brown out situations.

Besides, it IS coming. So, the direction here needs to be one of finding the best way to utilize this new source of energy. Whining about new energy just doesn't make sense. We NEED new energy.

 

Well the evidence is in the output data from the panels I provided.

On a good day the panel produces a bell curve that peaks at noon. (demand peaks not at noon)
On a partly cloudy day the panel produces a child's scribble.
On a rainy day the panel produces next to nothing.
In the summer is produces more.
In the winter it produces less.

Here's some evidence from a company selling a hive control tech to try and solve this problem:

https://www.hivepower.tech/blog/grid-stability-issues-with-renewable-energy-how-they-can-be-solved

Which is basically what I suggested before: The power company gets to control your panels...