All Forum Posts by: Andrew Smith

Hi @Bill F. as with @Steve K. thank you for an interesting topic.

It's not just the UK experience that impacts my thoughts. San Onofre is a national disgrace. In part caused by the false promises of Yucca mountain. We are one (small) tsunami away from an incident that would for ever change California and have massive global economic impact too. [sarcasm] Good thing CA doesn't get earthquakes [/sarcasm].

There are many articles on the subject but this one gives a good summary: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17765538/san-onofre-nuclear-generating-station-radioactive-spent-fuel-waste-yucca-mountain

It would take a lot - including solutions that didn't financially burden our and future generations - to move me from "colour me skeptical" on a nuclear solution. Germany is proving that it is not necessary: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13592208

Meant time we do have an almost indescribably large fusion reactor available to us for free and the tech capability to harness its power. I know I'm biased but...

 :) I fly too! I also love my old Ariel Atom racecar. My carbon offset currently sits at 70 million pounds of CO2 from our solar installs though so I sleep soundly even though burning a few dead dinosaurs! 

Thanks @Bill F.

It's an interesting letter for sure. I grew up with Hunterston Power Station in Scotland in my World. Did the tours and loved the notion of "cheap" power as does everyone I suppose. I will never forget though being literally shut down for asking what the cost of decommissioning and security was. I wasn't an "activist", just wanted to know a "big picture".

That shutdown inspired me to look deeper and my feelings of being lied to and grossly misled have only got worse over the years. The article I posted on San Onofre should genuinely scare everyone. Even without the potential for disaster there, the economics of clean up, storage and security make "cheap nuclear" even more of a lie now than then.

A great example of the lies is in the "state-of-the-art" new nuclear facility in Hinkley Point, Somerset UK. A recent cost overrun projection of $1.5bn adding to massive costs before we even consider the long-term clean up, storage and security costs. This hits poorer people as all consumers will pay on their utility bills, just as happened with San Onofre:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42065837

It is a bit depressing that Gates would focus on this. Every energy plan has a price. The issue with solar and other renewables is the intermittent production requiring storage solutions. It would be so much better if Gates and his network could focus on some kind of "Manhattan Project" to develop solutions. There is promising technology like graphene supercapacitors but a long way to go. I know that the US has the capability to find solutions if it has the will. Gates joining forces with the likes of Musk would go a long way towards that.

It's definitely true it's only part of the solution too. My Wife guilted me in to becoming vegetarian as eating meat was not congruent with my renewable message! Of course she's right and I haven't honestly missed red meat. Reducing red meat consumption would have a massive benefit for the climate.

Nuclear still uses the "steam engine" to produce power. The average US household family of 4 uses 400 gallons of water a day directly - drinking, eating, washing etc. However the power plants that produce their power use on average 1200 gallons PER DAY of fresh water for that family's power use! 

1200/day = 438,000 gallons/year of fresh water for the power used in each average household of 4!! Rooftop solar requires 0 gallons/year.

To see how your diet impacts the climate, there's a fun calculator here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714

 With regard to the tariffs though the 30% tariffs is on the components. The 30% tax credit is on the entire system. So on a $21K system it would be 30% on $7K in tariffs but 30% tax credit on $21K in rough numbers so the tax credit is worth a lot more than the tariff.

100% concur in wondering what happened to less Govt, free market and free trade too. Tariffs are taxes.

Definitely different circumstances as the roof then would be owned by HOA. It's very difficult then to slice off "footprints" of roof space for resale and avoid someone else's panels being on your part of the roof. We do install community solar for entire communities and entire HOAs and they are excellent typically for ROI for the HOAs/Communities but are not working in the same way for the homeowners withing those HOAs/communities

I hope this is OK to do. I figured something from the "Real World" would be more meaningful. 

Attached is a redacted actual solar proposal. This homeowner is in Southern CA and contracted this system. They are in an HOA and we had zero challenges or issues with them.

The salient points are:

1. Customer was spending $3000 yr to rent power from SCE or around $250/mo.
2. System offsets almost 100% of usage and costs $188/mo for 20 years.
3. Using 4% escalator for Edison they would spend $125,000 to rent power for 25 years.
4. Solar payment is fixed at $188 for 20 years then paid off with free power.
5. Loan is 0% down.
6. 25 year savings with standard payments $63,519
7. If homeowner pays the difference between $188 and what they would have given to Edison then 25 year savings are $73,552 and system paid off in 10 years.
8. 25 year average cost of power. Without solar $0.37/KwH. With solar 20 year finance $0.14/KwH. With solar 10 year paid off $0.11/KwH.
9. Max degradation production guarantee 0.5% for 25 years.
10. CO2 Savings equivalent 5599 trees growing for 10 years!

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/betterideasteam/Resources/Redacted+-+9.4+kW+-+20+Yr+Dividend.pdf

Hopefully that at least adds real world numbers and happy to answer questions.

If you are paying cash for a system, there is a period before you get an ROI. Typically 7-11 years depending on a number of factors. If you are financing - as most people do - the goal of a system would be at worst to replace your spend with utility and in CA more likely save money monthly out of the gate. That is with ZERO out of pocket. Zero out and saving money means instant ROI in most peoples' minds.

Every circumstance is different. If it was the whole HOA looking at a community solar project that is a whole different world of commercial solar. It would depend on the financing and how the HOA were billing the homeowners.

All financed systems consider that homeowners move. That's why in terms of owned systems at least it is an easy transfer or simple payoff. NAR and CAR both consider systems raise the value of your home.

Did you push your HOA for a community solar project or for solar for your own home? Do you have a communal roof or is it an SFR?

 This must be a record for the most factual inaccuracies and false statements in one paragraph. 

1) Solar achieved grid parity with fossil fuel power almost a decade ago. In many States - especially CA - it is far less expensive for homeowners to produce their own power from solar than purchase from utilities.

2) Solar panels typically have production guarantees for 25 years with 0.5% degradation/yr max. That means that they are guaranteed to produce 87.5% AT LEAST in 25 years of what they start out life producing. That means they will likely continue producing for decades more. That does vary by manufacturer, but that is typical for reputable solar.

3) Because of the lifespan there are simply not enough degraded panels to make recycling economical. If you have no raw materials i.e. degraded panels, it's pretty hard to recycle them. NO DOUBT panels will be recycled as more degrade and recycling becomes economically viable. Combine this with manufacturing and recycling using solar power as their own power source and it's pretty obvious that solar is massively less impactful than fossil fuels.

4) In 8 seconds on Google, the data appeared as if by magic showing nuclear being 9% of CA's production https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

5) As a sidebar on nuclear, people need to become educated on San Onofre. SoCal's Fukushima in-waiting. The lies told about nuclear are horrific. I't's my son's generation and beyond that will have that to deal with though so no issue for short-termists I suppose. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chapple-san-onofre-20180815-story.html

To dispel an other couple of myths and falsehoods:

6) Dirty panels do not produce significantly less power than clean ones. Unless you live next to a guano mine then power production is reduced by less than 1% with typical dirt. Panels clean easily with one decent rainfall. The maintenance costs then should be $0. There are industries being spawned like solar panel cleaning companies. While these are unnecessary, it is for the greater economic good I suppose.

7) Tariffs, while ludicrous, have not significantly increased costs. Roughly 65% of the cost of a system is in human beings rather than the equipment. That's another reason not to wait to go solar if considering it on the basis that costs will fall. Even if panels reduce some relative to cost/KwH that will be offset by labor cost increase and certainly by the scheduled reduction in tax credits starting this year.

8) Not every home can go solar. Roof aspect/shading etc mean that not every home qualifies. This is factored into the mandate.

9) A lot of myths would be dispelled if people consider the underlying grid right now. Right now we dig, mine or drill for fossil fuels. We transport them all across the planet burning more fossil fuels to do it, and requiring massive human and economic costs in protecting the supply lines. We then burn them to boil water to turn turbines. Literally steam engine technology. Energy loss in power plants averages 65%. Add a further 10-20% in losses on the grid transportation and it's around 23 quadrillion BTU of loss. Solar panels sit in place on your roof producing power. It is converted in an inverter on your garage wall and brought into your house. Which do you think is more efficient? Seriously. Which requires trillions of dollars of maintenance and which does not?

10) CO2 has been known as a heat trapping environmental gas for over a century. Adding trillions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere is impacting the climate. We can see it in real time right now. One residential solar system offsets the same CO2 as planting around 5000 trees that grow for 10 years. Sometimes we have to cut down a tree or a few trees to make solar work on a home. We sacrifice one or a few for 5000. If you visualize a BMW X5. Now think what that weighs. That weight of CO2 is saved from the atmosphere EVERY MONTH because a home goes solar.

11) Globally, around 1 in every 4 deaths are related to the environment. From extraction to transportation to burning and disposal, to climate change, fossil fuels are a huge factor. Their use and the grid we know got us to being the greatest nation on earth and all developed societies have energy in common. It has come at a massive price, we know it. We can and must do better. CA leads the World in being proactive.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/09/21/globally-about-1-4-human-deaths-are-due-environmental-factors-10198

 If only there were some kind of massive fusion reactor that was accessible to us on a daily basis, perhaps in the sky. Imagine if we could just harness the power of that fusion reactor and get endless renewable energy!