[amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Fri Jan 1 20:53:54 UTC 2016

> After a certain number of solar connections, power companies
> will no longer be required to do net metering.  ..
> They are usually getting [solar] power that they have
> to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.

Not true at all except on talk radio and fossil fuel funded stink tanks.

The price of electricity varies minute-by-minute over a factor of
ten-to-one during each day based on the minute by minute supply and
demand.  Consumers pay a "fixed" rate that is 10% over the average cost to
assure the utilities make their PSC guaranteed profits.  But the truth is
that when the utility is paying me solar net-meter rates (1-to-1 at that
average consumer rate) the utility is actually getting a GREAT deal because
otherwise on sunny summer days when they are having to buy very dirty high
cost peaking electricity at ten to 20 times the standard rate to avoid a
brownout, they are still gettting my solar at only the 1-to-1 fixed rate.
That distributed solar power that the utility gets for 1-to-1 when they
need it *most* is more than enough to pay the small distribution cost my
solar system is avoiding.

So don't be fooled by the very deep pocket disinformation from the fossil
fueled stink tanks.

> They are usually getting [solar] power that they have
> to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.

The opposite is true.  Solar peaks at the same time that Air conditioning
load peaks and we ll know that such brownouts are always in the summer.  So
they are actually always getting cheap solar-net-metered power when the DO
need it most.

Problem is the narrow-minded foolish politicians in many backward states
believe this propaganda from the fossil fuel industry hook, line and sinker
and are eating away at the benefits of net metering just to maintain the
status quo and their monopoly on the grid.

And if you still don't believe it, just witness our local BG&E.  When you
get a regular smart meter, they automatically will PAY EVERY consumer on
their system TEN TIMES the normal rate for every kWh they do NOT use during
these peak summer days!  Normally our rate is 14 cents per kwH.  But during
peak summer loads, they will pay $1.50 per kWh that you do NOT use.  There
is the proof as to how much electricity really costs when it is needed
most... yet they get my solar (net metered) for just the same 14 cents and
are very definitely enjoying it.

How do they know what you are NOT using?  SImple, the smart meter knows
your average load on such days and hence, if you dont use that much on any
given brownout day you get this TEN-to-ONE premium credit.  A good time to
go to the beach....  Typically people who turn things off or go to the
beach get a $10 to $20 credit for each such day.

So don't believe everything you hear from talk radio and the stink tanks...


> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga at usna.edu>
> wrote:
>> > If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
>> midnight.
>> No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the
>> beginning.  AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress
>> actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
>> > Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea.  Not a place to
>> screw
>> up.
>> Use a reputable contractor with guarantee.  They know how to do it right.
>> > 42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)...
>> > Remember statics and dynamics??
>> > ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game.
>> > In Florida in summer? Fatal.
>> 50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8  lbs per square foot
>> and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design
>> figure of typically 30 psf.  (Though in Florida the snow load is
>> considered
>> 0).  The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
>> than
>> a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
>> > Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced  23 kWh.
>> > Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
>> Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
>> > HF RFI? Undetectable.
>> Thanks, that is great news!
>> > I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock.
>> > SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
>> I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other
>> three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs.  The SMA was so heavy I had
>> to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to
>> inside the house!  Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it
>> into place.  I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
>> there
>> were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
>> But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and
>> SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob <WB4SON at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
>> about
>> > 20
>> > > gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total
>> > > installed capacity of US solar power.  This is being primarily driven
>> by
>> > > residential installations.  Utility-scale installations are actually
>> down
>> > > 5%.
>> > >
>> > > One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of
>> > > production capability that existed through 2014.  Manufactures were
>> not
>> > > keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
>> out
>> > of
>> > > business or consolidating.  That glut has been drying up, prompting
>> Elon
>> > > Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will
>> > > produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016.  Those panels are
>> > > expected to be 22.1% efficient.  That's a pretty impressive gain in
>> > > efficiency.
>> > >
>> > > Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
>> the
>> > > mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar
>> > > industry.  That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
>> mean
>> > > that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
>> panels
>> > > may simply sell for 50% more.
>> > >
>> > > 73, Bob, WB4SON
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost  in to the equation
>> and
>> > >> they improve.
>> > >> nick
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM
>> > >> To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
>> > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
>> > >>
>> > >> Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
>> > your
>> > >> house:
>> > >>
>> > >> http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
>> > >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>> Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list