Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hey, Farmers, Let Us Help You Take Your Farmland Out of Production
This advertisement appears in my new edition of the Washington State University Magazine. I graduated from WSU in 1971, and it is the state’s Agriculture University, established by a Morrill Act land grant in the 19th century. As are most colleges, WSU is as woke as it gets. I no longer donate to my alma mater for this reason.
This ad below is horrifying to me. It tells me that the college is in favor of taking productive farm and pasture land out of food production in favor of solar farms to feed power into an increasingly unreliable electric grid. Please note the long list of restrictions on the land, and the weasel words on the income the farmer could receive if he leases to the solar company.
Yes, let’s just take farms and ranches out of producing food, contributing to the coming worldwide food shortages. I wonder what kind of verbal pitches these solar-farm hucksters are using on the wheat farmers and ranchers of eastern Washington, whose grains, vegetables, meat, and wine are feeding people all over the country and the world. I hope those farmers and ranchers throw the hucksters out on their ears.
Our dictator, Jay Inslee, is behind this sort of thing.
Published in Energy
I meant people “off the grid” in the sense that they are remote enough from existing power lines, that running the lines to their property would be insanely expensive. FOR THEM, buying a windmill or solar panels would still not “make sense” – because the power it generates would be way more expensive than “grid power” – but it’s the only option they have.
People who install windmills or solar panels even though they are actually within a “grid power” area, are still paying more for the power they produce than the “grid power” costs, so the only way it “makes sense” for them to do so is because of subsidies. Subsidies for the purchase and installation, subsidies for selling their measly power to the grid…
Oh.
Oh.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I can see why some people would think it’s a good idea to install solar or wind at their home, taking advantage of generous subsidies since “Government Is How We Steal From Each Other,” but I see problems beyond just the cost numbers that usually seem to come from the solar/wind advocates to begin with.
I read about people who sign up for a multi-year contract and then find out that the equipment doesn’t last as long as was claimed, and may not produce as much power as they were told from the very start, and it then declines with the aging equipment.
There can be problems with roof damage, although solar panels don’t weigh as much as they used to. But there can still be damage and leaks etc, depending on how the roof was built and how good the often-fly-by-night solar installers are. And even if they don’t disclaim responsibility for such damage, you can’t sue and collect from a company that is no longer in business.
The subsidies and mandatory-buy-back rates etc can change at any time.
I also don’t want to support China and the greenies in any way. Everyone who installs solar/wind is one more point towards the greenies thinking they’re right and that you agree with them.
For people who think they should be prepared for grid failure or something, as with keeping a backup generator in the garage, I would think the smarter way to go would be to buy the solar stuff, but leave it in the boxes until it’s actually needed. That way if the time comes, it won’t already be worn out or broken.
This goes back to #27 where are the only point I was making was the societal level observation that the physics professor was making. I’m trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about that relates to that.
Threads Evolve™
Understanding And Progress Only Happens When The Rhetorical Flow Has A Baseline Level Of Clarity™
If you can convert our network of publicly-regulated utilities into actual capitalist entities, I would concede the point. Because any actual capitalist utility will place conditions on the sale of power to its customers, via some contract, that requires said customer to not destabilize the grid for everyone else. Which, for any capitalist utility that wants to stay in business, would include banning solar connections. (And wind.) In an environment where solar and wind can’t earn money or other credits by pushing into the grid, and no other subsidies exist, the problem will solve itself, probably without any on-site enforcement of such a contract.
It’s not rocket science. It is simple electrical and mechanical engineering.
Absolutely. Without subsidies the whole solar industry would collapse. You know it’s a scam because nobody ever brushes the snow off of them. So, 0% production for a few days is better than paying someone minimum wage with a snow rake to clean them off.
Yeah because they really don’t have to actually produce, they only have to exist.
Just because the utilities and the grids they maintain are regulated, doesn’t mean that the consumers should be. If the solar panels or other power source isn’t hooked to the grid then it’s still none of their business. If they sell power then they can be regulated. But I’m restating my case here. So here’s more.
Utility power engineers will tell you that the optimal customers are those that use the same amount of power 24 hours a day. When designing a grid, variations in power mean having reserve power in play that costs additional money.
Of course engineers hate renewables because it increases that variability. Worse, it’s less predictable.
From a practical view point, a solar panel on a house doesn’t affect the grid compared to massive wind and solar farms. Nor do I think that there are going to be that many of them built, even with subsidies. Requiring the same regulation, as a non-seller, almost sounds like regulating as a matter of principle instead of regulating because of need.
They’re not profitable, especially if you count the labor to install them, and you almost have to be an obsessive hobbiest — do the work yourself — to even have a chance to get a payback from them.
Even if you sell power back to the power company (which as others point out the utilities are mandated to accept) the amount they pay you for that power is less than what you pay for it when accepting power from the utility. They are basing it on what 3rd party power plants get paid, not what the consumer pays. After all, it costs money to maintain the grid, and the utilities needs a profit to pay for maintaining the grid.
Absolutely. In fact, industrial-scale power consumers have to sign contracts with their utilities that spell out the huge penalties they pay when their consumption varies. The actual energy fee is small compared to the “peak demand” fee. Why are homeowners off this hook? Because, until consumer green power became a thing, home use of energy was predictable enough around the clock for utilities to dispatch against. With consumer green power in the mix, not so much.
Thank you for making my case.
Go do the math. Government is pushing hard to spread consumer solar. It adds up to a serious problem.
They are selling way more consumer solar systems than hobbyists can possibly account for. I say you must be wrong about at least the apparent payback.
Meh. They still get paid for energy put into the grid, contributing to grid destabilization.
(cont’d)
(cont’d)
My late father, also a EE, spent tens of thousands of dollars for a small wind and solar kit, with batteries and 5kW inverter, back in the early ’90s. (In ’90s dollars.) For a system that is easily replaced today with a $1,000 portable gasoline generator. The generator is more reliable, simpler to use, and can be used almost indefinitely in a sustained power outage. And its life cycle is dramatically superior to the “green” energy system in regards to environmental impact.
My very intelligent father was blinded by the appeal of “independent” power. Just as today’s activists are blinded by their fear of environmental catastrophe.
If you are capable of doing the math, check your facts. Propagandists rely on smart people taking their word on the math.
My father admitted he was wrong about green power before he passed. Partly because it was broken, and not feasible to fix. My mother eventually ripped out the remnants and put in a whole-house propane generator with all the bells and whistles. The latter, in 2021 dollars, was cheaper than the 1992 price tag of the green system. (I think it was ’92.)
But one difference is that a propane or natural gas backup generator is intended to be used only when grid power is not available. People get solar/wind systems because they expect them to provide at least some of their power every day, in addition to being available as a backup.
Which is exactly the problem. That is what destabilizes the grid. The utilities can’t forecast demand very well, and have to keep adjusting the dispatchable generators minute by minute for every cloud bank that drifts over the solar farm and every eddy in the wind. And naturally have to keep enough dispatchable power (that dirty stuff) always available in case a big cloud bank arrives with a calm.
Not a bit of green power allows any dirty power to be decommissioned. But it gets decommissioned anyways, because the money to maintain it is spent on the green power that is killing the grid.
Go search for “solar power duck curve” as I suggested in #32.
Yes, that’s what I mentioned before about how people shouldn’t expect to not have to pay for grid power being AVAILABLE even if they aren’t using it all the time: they damn well expect it to be there when they need it!
The savings are significant because of how much we are being gouged.
Older people who are not at all “We must save the planet!” types have gone the solar route because they saw their 30 something kids making back the money that was put out in a few short years.
It also is a feature that makes a house more desirable if it needs to go on the housing market.
I calculated the kilowatt usage charges back in May, and while many people in the USA pay 14 to 17 cents per calculation, we in Calif were paying 34 cents. It has gone up significantly since May!
In 2021, my household was paying about $ 155 a month, with some months being as low as 85 bucks and other months hitting almost 300. We almost never use the clothes dryer. It is just the two of us. We like it 55 degrees at night.
This year we are averaging $ 315 a month!
I have no idea what people are doing who have young kids, or people who have an elderly person who is frail elderly and needs heat all night.
I would not have bought the place I have now, if there had been solar panels in place. I’m too familiar with the complications that can result, especially if someone thought they bought them but they were in fact only leasing/renting. Which could mean the supplying company could take them back, resulting in further roof damage, etc. Or I might just be obligated to pay a large fee for not returning them.
Are you dividing the entire bill by the number of kilowatt-hours? Because if so, that’s not really valid. I’m confident you are paying connection charges etc, that are about the same every month. The charge for the amount of power actually delivered, is a separate line-item on the bill.
My own latest bill, for example, totals up to about $170 for the billing period. Of that, the actual cost of energy delivered was about $102. Leaving about $68, well over a third of the total, which is connection charges – just being connected to the grid so I can receive the power, and my place actually has two connections/meters that I pay for separately (which means a regular home might expect to pay about $34/month for that) – so calculating $ per Kw/Hr actually used would not include those.
Looks like for the actual power used, I’m paying just under 10 cents per Kw/Hr. The rate may be higher in summer, I haven’t checked.
And I like a warm bed in a cool room, so I use an electric blanket.
The two of us, both retired and home much of the time, 2000 SF house, pay about $75 a month for electricity, but we have gas heat and hot water. We do prodigious amounts of laundry, and have been running the dishwasher more than we did when one or both of us were working. Now, we benefit mightily from the hydroelectric source of our electricity. We probably have the lowest rates in the country. Our power is provided by a Public Utility District, which has been promoting solar to us for years, in spite of the fact that we normally don’t get as much sunshine as, say, California.
When I was looking at setting up a computer school in The Dalles, Oregon, I got estimates from Bonneville Power etc of 3 cents per Kw/Hr. Pretty important for some of the Big Iron systems I had put in storage for it then.
It isn’t your utility’s fault. It is your state’s politicians’ fault. PG&E has mandates up the wazoo that force them to sell you expensive, unreliable power. While propagandizing all the time how their efforts are “saving the planet”.
If you want to make a real difference in your California town, denounce Democrats publicly every chance you get.
I wouldn’t even let Dish install anything on my roof. They found a spot in the backyard.