SolarCity (SCTY)

[renim]

Western Australia is about 2.646 million km²
Nevada is about 286,367 km², so Nevada is about 10x smaller than WA.
Both have a similar population, Nevada is just marginally more populous

A lot of WA is beyond the electricity grid & a lot of WA is on the edge of the grid, I once lived in a town south of Kalgoorlie, back then the company had its own natural gas turbines, so I doubt that, that town was even connected to the WA power grid back then. For WA, a significant amount of grid defection would reduce grid costs for those remaining.

 

[Skotty]

Electricity generation capacity has a lifetime of something like 40 years, only recently has the transition to solar and wind begun as it is only recently renewables has become competetive on price. The transition to 100% solar and wind won't happen overnight, that is just impossible. It will probably happen in 15-20 years.

I haven't seem much interest by utilities in my area to even think about installing renewable/clean energy. The only effort they have put forth is due to mandates by law, and even the laws have been under attack.

Five years later, Missouri still grappling with renewable law

The sole law in question is the Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Lets take a peek at the Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) RES compliance plan for 2016. (note: KCP&L is actually KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company and is referred to as "GMO" in the plan)

2.1.2 SOLAR COMPLIANCE
GMO anticipates that the acquisition of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs),principally from GMO retail customers that have received rebates for solar facility installations, will be sufficient for compliance with the Missouri solar energy requirements for the 2016 to 2018 RES Compliance Plan period. The SRECs will be transferred to GMO from qualified customer-generator’s operational solar electric systems as a condition of receiving the solar rebate, a change institutedwith Missouri House Bill 142 becoming law on August 28, 2013.SRECs produced from these solar electric systems will be transferred to GMO for a period of 10 years.​

Tell me I'm reading this wrong -- but it sounds like KCP&L is using solar installed by 3rd parties to meet their own solar energy requirements. In other words, they are doing nothing, and intend to continue doing nothing for the foreseeable future.

http://psc.mo.gov/CMSInternetData/E...rgy Standard Compliance Plan EO-2016-0283.pdf

 

[Jack6591]

Solar competes at the retail level. Utilities cannot compete without "regulatory capture".

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs the interests of firms or political groups are prioritised over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

 

[Perfectlogic]

I haven't seem much interest by utilities in my area to even think about installing renewable/clean energy. The only effort they have put forth is due to mandates by law, and even the laws have been under attack.

Five years later, Missouri still grappling with renewable law

The sole law in question is the Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Lets take a peek at the Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) RES compliance plan for 2016. (note: KCP&L is actually KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company and is referred to as "GMO" in the plan)

2.1.2 SOLAR COMPLIANCE
GMO anticipates that the acquisition of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs),principally from GMO retail customers that have received rebates for solar facility installations, will be sufficient for compliance with the Missouri solar energy requirements for the 2016 to 2018 RES Compliance Plan period. The SRECs will be transferred to GMO from qualified customer-generator’s operational solar electric systems as a condition of receiving the solar rebate, a change institutedwith Missouri House Bill 142 becoming law on August 28, 2013.SRECs produced from these solar electric systems will be transferred to GMO for a period of 10 years.​

Tell me I'm reading this wrong -- but it sounds like KCP&L is using solar installed by 3rd parties to meet their own solar energy requirements. In other words, they are doing nothing, and intend to continue doing nothing for the foreseeable future.

http://psc.mo.gov/CMSInternetData/Electric/Renewable Energy/2015 Reports/2016 KCPL Greater Missouri Operations Renewable Energy Standard Compliance Plan EO-2016-0283.pdf

Seems like there are better environments for renewable energy outside Missouri so they import it, which I don't see the problem in, beside of course it being a negative for the Missouri economy.

 

[Perfectlogic]

Solar competes at the retail level. Utilities cannot compete without "regulatory capture".

Residential solar is wholesale energy production on the roof of someones home as long as they still rely on the grid. Try going off grid and see how the rooftop solar model holds up against the utility rate.

 

[jhm]

Seems like there are better environments for renewable energy outside Missouri so they import it, which I don't see the problem in, beside of course it being a negative for the Missouri economy.

I doubt it has little to do with the physical environment. It's pretty flat, mostly crop land. Lots of wind and sun. I suspect the political environment is inhibiting renewables.

I would add that Missouri is not a big coal producer, less than 0.04% of total US production. So they are importing coal from other states when they could be creating new jobs within the state to install and maintain wind and solar assets.

 

[Jack6591]

Customers make retail decisions.

When utilities are held accountable for environmental impact we will have a level playing field.

 

[jhm]

Customers make retail decisions.

When utilities are held accountable for environmental impact we will have a level playing field.

And when utilities give up state protected monopoly status...

 

[Krugerrand]

Seems like there are better environments for renewable energy outside Missouri so they import it, which I don't see the problem in, beside of course it being a negative for the Missouri economy.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with refined sugar besides of course that it can rot kid's teeth, lead to obesity and generally just isn't good for a person's health.

 

[Perfectlogic]

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with refined sugar besides of course that it can rot kid's teeth, lead to obesity and generally just isn't good for a person's health.

It doesn't matter where the solar energy is produced as long as it is used. You are saying that even if the US had 100% of its electricity covered by solar panels in New Mexico that would be bad. You guys really have it out for the utilities huh.

@Jack

The thing is that utility scale solar fits directly into the current system with the same low cost as we have now. The benefit of no greenhouse gases without the huge added cost of going with residential solar.

 

[Krugerrand]

It doesn't matter where the solar energy is produced as long as it is used. You are saying that even if the US had 100% of its electricity covered by solar panels in New Mexico that would be bad. You guys really have it out for the utilities huh.

Ask the residents of Ontario, Canada how they feel about what Hydro One has done and is doing.

In principle (and theory) it doesn't matter where the solar energy in produced. In practical it matters very much. So yeah, it's bad for *many* but New Mexico given how the world works today. If we were all one big, happy family then it's a different story. Perhaps those going to Mars will be able to show the rest of us how to live as a cooperative rather than how we tend to live today, until then the ability for individuals to get out from under utilities (not to be forgotten - run by people) is important.

 

[ggies07]

It doesn't matter where the solar energy is produced as long as it is used. You are saying that even if the US had 100% of its electricity covered by solar panels in New Mexico that would be bad. You guys really have it out for the utilities huh.

I would agree that how ever we get to 100% reneweable adoption is the end game, but looking at the long term vision, distributed generation across the US with battery storage looks to be the BEST way once we are mostly on renewable energy. So why not set out for that path from the start?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Seems like there are better environments for renewable energy outside Missouri so they import it, which I don't see the problem in, beside of course it being a negative for the Missouri economy.

Read the Missouri Solar thread in the Energy forum and you will see why it's more expensive there. The hardware is $1.20 everywhere, at scale residential solar is competitive at retail in every region.

 

[gigglehertz]

The thing is that utility scale solar fits directly into the current system with the same low cost as we have now. The benefit of no greenhouse gases without the huge added cost of going with residential solar.

And yet one of the "smartest" businessman of our times Warren Buffet owns a utility that is paying almost a billion dollars to build a fossil fuel plant in the dessert, which would be the ideal place to put in utility solar.

 

[jhm]

It doesn't matter where the solar energy is produced as long as it is used. You are saying that even if the US had 100% of its electricity covered by solar panels in New Mexico that would be bad. You guys really have it out for the utilities huh.

@Jack

The thing is that utility scale solar fits directly into the current system with the same low cost as we have now. The benefit of no greenhouse gases without the huge added cost of going with residential solar.

This fundamentally wrong. You are ignoring the cost of transmission. Presently the transmission grid cannot support moving power from New Mexico to all the other lower 48 states. Huge transmission lines would have to be added just to make this feasible. And all these lines would need to be maintained. Also, transmission losses are around 1% per 100 miles. So 25% percent of this power is lost just transmitting it to the northeast.

Theoretical work has been done to model the possibility of 100% renewable grid for the lower 48 using just transmission and no storage. Theoretically it is possible, but it requires an enormous and costly grid far beyond what currently exists and it requires very careful positioning of wind and solar generation locations.

 

[Perfectlogic]

I would agree that how ever we get to 100% reneweable adoption is the end game, but looking at the long term vision, distributed generation across the US with battery storage looks to be the BEST way once we are mostly on renewable energy. So why not set out for that path from the start?

So you would rather pay 20c/kwh and have solar panels on your roof than 12c/kwh and have the solar panels somewhere else? I doubt many would agree. And yes ofcourse in the future the total cost for the residential system would go down, but those same cost reductions would make the grid option cheaper (cheaper solar panels and cheaper batteries help both systems). Why would you pay significantly more to have the solar panels on your roof than somewhere else? If you are concerned about power outtages it would be cheaper to get a battery or a diesel generator for that rare occasion.

@giggle
I'm pretty sure Buffet also owns a large stake in one of the largest utility scale solar plants in the US too, he owns a lot of things.

 

[Perfectlogic]

This fundamentally wrong. You are ignoring the cost of transmission. Presently the transmission grid cannot support moving power from New Mexico to all the other lower 48 states. Huge transmission lines would have to be added just to make this feasible. And all these lines would need to be maintained. Also, transmission losses are around 1% per 100 miles. So 25% percent of this power is lost just transmitting it to the northeast.

Theoretical work has been done to model the possibility of 100% renewable grid for the lower 48 using just transmission and no storage. Theoretically it is possible, but it requires an enormous and costly grid far beyond what currently exists and it requires very careful positioning of wind and solar generation locations.

Look, I didn't say that planting all the solar panels in New Mexico is the cheapest way to manage the grid, I used that example to proof a point that from an environmental standpoint it doesn't matter much where the renewable energy is produced.

I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring the fact that transmission is still a cost with residential solar as long as you use the grid. Transmission cost doesn't have to be huge with utility scale plants, in most of the US there are decent locations relatively close. That added cost of perhaps 1 or 2 cents at most doesn't even come close to the added cost of 8 cents / kwh for rooftop solar compared to utility scale.

 

[gene]

Look, I didn't say that planting all the solar panels in New Mexico is the cheapest way to manage the grid, I used that example to proof a point that from an environmental standpoint it doesn't matter much where the renewable energy is produced.

From an environmental standpoint it does matter, hugely, where the energy is produced. I have worked with desert tortoise research for years. I can tell you the solar farms in the California desert are decimating wildlife. The land is scraped bare, and huge fences surround the thousands and thousands of destroyed acres. This sickens me. I have a 3500 square foot house and drive my Tesla 1500 miles per month. All of this powered (with reserve) by less than 400 sq ft. of solar on my roof. No dead tortoises, coyotes, bobcats. No transmission lines.

Simply stated; if you use electricity, you have a roof. Use it!

 

[Perfectlogic]

From an environmental standpoint it does matter, hugely, where the energy is produced. I have worked with desert tortoise research for years. I can tell you the solar farms in the California desert are decimating wildlife. The land is scraped bare, and huge fences surround the thousands and thousands of destroyed acres. This sickens me. I have a 3500 square foot house and drive my Tesla 1500 miles per month. All of this powered (with reserve) by less than 400 sq ft. of solar on my roof. No dead tortoises, coyotes, bobcats. No transmission lines.

Simply stated; if you use electricity, you have a roof. Use it!

I'm sure the huge savings with a grid system could improve the environment for wildlife 10 times as much if used efficiently where it matters the most. I would also argue that betting hard on the utility scale solar with grid system would be much better for the environment as it is actually realistic to go away from burning fossil fuels quickly with this system as it is competetive on cost. Very few people would actually choose residential solar today if they had to pay the real price (practically noone was installing panels on their roof 5 years ago when it was much more expensive).

 

[TheTalkingMule]

So you would rather pay 20c/kwh and have solar panels on your roof than 12c/kwh and have the solar panels somewhere else? I doubt many would agree. And yes ofcourse in the future the total cost for the residential system would go down, but those same cost reductions would make the grid option cheaper (cheaper solar panels and cheaper batteries help both systems). Why would you pay significantly more to have the solar panels on your roof than somewhere else? If you are concerned about power outtages it would be cheaper to get a battery or a diesel generator for that rare occasion.

This is the SolarCity thread, no one is "paying" anything for rooftop solar here. Every SCTY PPA market is priced 10-15% below local grid prices. What's the problem?

Clearly the best solution it to move hassle-free production as close to consumption as possible so long as it lowers cost, is what the consumer wants and retains flexibility for whatever setup the future may hold.

If you told suburban Philadelphia people 5 years ago that they'd be able to sign a contract and have panels on their roof at negative cost with no maintenance they'd say you're nuts. Yet here we are.