If the Utility paid everyone the same rate for the kilowatts they generate the Utilities would still earn a big profit off everything else they provide!

I’d also suggest that like Cable companies, if Utilities were forced to compete against other Utilities then ratepayers would have much lower rates!

In California, the Utility has every imaginable item broken out for a separate fee, and there is no reason that they should pay themselves a higher price for a kilowatt that they pay a residential supplier for the same kilowatt at the same time of day! These “public utilities” should be enabling the public to secure safe, low cost energy not making their shareholders rich on the back of the ratepayers. SCE and SDG&E charge some of the highest rates for Energy in the USA and their shareholders have had record profits the last few years, what is fair about that?

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was talking about finding a fair way to pay solar owners for the power they produce.

Paying rooftop solar suppliers retail rates is not fair to the utility. They have costs which they should be allowed to recover. And they are due a reasonable profit.

What you are talking about is using subsidies to increase the installation of solar systems. That’s one of the roles of subsidies, to increase use/adoption of something.

If we want to accelerate the installation rate of solar (which I think we should do) then that money needs to come out of taxpayer funds, not out of the utility company’s budget.

It is highly likely that those who install solar on their rooftops are reducing the cost of electricity for everyone.

My numbers come from the ESAA. I took them from this article and in that article you can find a link to the ESAA report.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/utilities-want-higher-charges-to-shade-business-model-from-solar-92600

I spent $50,000 on batteries and solar set up, in of that which I have 12 kW system per hour which I put in place. At the rate electricity is increasing by, at the end of this year 2013, I will be around $13,000 for the new electricity Charges if connect to the utility provider.

You don’t understand the situation, your implying a different argument. I don’t know whether you fully comprehend and understand what you’re talking about; we are not talking about AC loading but “Carbon Loading” at the gas/coal power stations.

Carbon loading is the amount of energy in which a house with solar power has to pay to run there house.

You point out your own figure that has no factual bases, but that you’re theoretical argument and nothing to do with Carbon Loading.

That’s not an excuse in your example Bob, the argument here is if you use generated energy other than your own, you need to pay for it based upon its carbon price.

Bob you can’t say an individual person or a community install solar panels and they generate 200 kW intermediate power of energy back to the utility provider, doesn’t excuse them from the fact when they’re not generating energy, that energy which they used from utility providers need to be pay for, base on of the carbon price for that energy, “carbon loading energy”.

Bob you are saying that they should not pay, that like me going to the supermarket buying groceries and telling the supermarket, I produce crops, I offset that, and I should not have to pay for the groceries, that is a bizarre situation your implying.

Or even better because I have an off grid system which produces 12 kW an hour the utility provider should give me all the energy needs to supply me because I’m not loading their infrastructure anymore. By your understanding utility provider should be shaking my hand saying thank you very much Mark for going off the grid, will give you free carbon base energy, because of your contribution for not loading the system anymore, will give you all the free energy that you like, because of your loyalty of not connecting solar power, will throw in a free air conditions unit to help you out.

A very bizarre situation and most generous of the utility provider bob.

If you are going to reduce C02 emission carbon Loading has to be applied.

Carbon loading calculation

Given the unit C02 emission are 1kw = 1.068kg of carbon dioxide and charge rate at $0.25 cent per KG that will amount to 30kw @ $0.25 kg C02 = $7.50 carbon pollutant emitted penalty, that works out at 32.04Kg of C02 carbon dioxide loading emission emitted from that solar home. This is a good incentive to dis-encourage the household to think before use energy hungry appliances like air-conditioning.

Bob, those who can afford solar power should pay to maintain the poles and wires, and paid for their fair share carbon based loading energy which they use.

Carbon loading on the agenda worldwide.

Many more Californians would install Solar if the Utility paid US for the energy we put INTO the grid, at the very same rate that the Utility charges when folks take the Energy OUT of the Grid!

By not paying US the same amount, the Utility shareholders receive additional money they do not deserve and the folks that have paid to install their own solar end up with a much longer payback period!

STOP the CA Utility RIPOFF of SOLAR ENERGY!

http://is.gd/eQog1d

To me net-metering is a win-win. Rooftop solar owners get the grid to store their non-sunny electricity supply for free. If they need more electricity than their system has produced during a spot of bad weather, they can purchase it for a price much better than operating a generator.

Utilities get peak demand electricity from the rooftops and can pay it back with much cheaper off-peak electricity.

That system will work great for both until there is so much rooftop on the grid that it saturates sunny-hour needs and turns the pricing structure upside down.

Feed in tariffs work great when the rooftop system costs more than what would be returned via net metering. No one is going to install a system if it increases their monthly costs. FiTs are great for getting programs started (as we’ve seen in Germany).

As we install more solar we will probably need some other form of compensating rooftop owners. Perhaps they should get a discount on their utility bill based on the number of kWh they send to the grid and have that price based on the wholesale price of electricity during those hours. Turn them into paid wholesale suppliers.

Both sides need to make a fair return.

The ESAA clearly state that the increased infrastructure costs are mostly due to increased AC loads.

I pointed out to you how the $2.50/month cost created by solar is almost certainly offset by the value solar gives to the grid. Were that solar not present then there would be a need for even more infrastructure upgrades to supply AC needs. Including buying more expensive peaking power.

Think it through with a simple model, Mark. Imagine an isolated community of ten houses. None with AC and with an average daily electricity use of 20 kWh. A total of 200 kWh per day and a feed-in wire sized to service that 200 kWh draw at peak.

Add solar panels to those some of houses and what happens? The flow of power in during sunny hours drops. No need to upgrade the line.

Now take that same community with its 200 kWh draw. Now add AC to some of those houses. The hourly peak draw jumps up when the Sun starts hitting those houses and the wire is too small. It has to be replaced.

But if some of those houses had solar installed the extra power needed would be generated in the community and would not have to be imported.

Worry about the heavy users who are causing the real needs for infrastructure upgrades, Mark. Those are the people who are driving cost up.

Applaud the people who are installing solar and keep prices from rising even higher.

The subsidies for solar systems have to be paid for somehow, households who don’t have solar help pay the power bills of households who do. Do you think that is right Bob?

Maintaining the thousands of kilometres of poles and wires that deliver electricity to our homes and businesses, which the ESAA state and make clear that houses with solar power are avoiding paying. Do you think that right Bob?

ESAA goes on to say “But solar households are among the biggest users of the

Networks, they highly dependent upon the grid for there energy needs from coal fired power stations.

Now that we have established that solar power houses are fully dependent from other sources of energy. (This type of solar power has not transition off fossil fuel at any time of the day)

Bob have I lost you, don’t worry I will explain more.

“The current arrangements are unfair and need to be changed”. “At the moment, low income households who cannot afford solar, renters and people in apartments pay more to underwrite those customers who can install their own solar system to the utility provider under subsidies, have forced lots of new taxes which are paid by low income households to underwrite those with solar power houses.” It’s morally wrong.

“We need to change the way we charge consumers for the cost of the networks to make sure everybody pays their fair share and not pass new taxes on to those without solar power.

In other words Bob, those who can afford solar power should pay to maintain the poles and wires, and paid for their fair share carbon based energy which they use.

A new Carbon energy usage tax need to be applied to those solar power homes on the network, this can be easily measured.

If you put 30 kW into the grid and then draw 30 kW out of the system, and if not producing any power or not covering that energy required during day or night then a flag fall kicks in, buy the way of an electricity usage carbon tax. Based upon the carbon measurement of energy which was used on the fossil fuel generator penalty will apply for C02 emission generated. So they can pay their fair share of the carbon price on their quarterly bill without avoidance which they are currently doing.

Given C02 emission are 1kw = 1.068kg of carbon dioxide and charge rate at $0.25 cent per KG that will amount to 30kw @ $0.25 kg C02 = $7.50 carbon pollutant emitted penalty, that works out at 32.04Kg of C02 carbon dioxide emission emitted from that solar home. This is a good incentive to dis-encourage the household to think before use energy hungry appliances like air-conditioning.

$340 million of ‘avoided costs’ by people who install rooftop solar is being ‘pushed’ onto all users. $30 per household. $2.50 per month.

That’s not a lot of money but it would be felt by someone living on the absolute edge. Very few households would even notice that extra eight cents per day.

What’s hurting is the extra $330 per household caused by grid expansion costs needed because of additional air conditioning use. That’s $27.50 per month and lots of us would notice that expense and object to it if is was giving us no value.

What would probably be fair would be to institute a higher price tier for people who are using more to cool their houses. (Of course people who are generating their own solar power to run their AC wouldn’t be hurt, as it should be.)

That said, let’s go to the solar issue, the $2.50 per month.

What do you think would have happened had not a lot of people put solar panels on their roofs? Remember, solar panels take load off the grid.

Those panels have meant that a lot of new capacity and transmission costs have been avoided. Without those new solar roofs the $330 per household would have likely been much higher.

I’d be very surprised if that $2.50 for solar hasn’t saved much more than it has cost and kept the $27.50 AC charge from going much higher.

You can check the “. This means households without air conditioners pay an implicit subsidy of $330 each year for upgrades to networks and generators to ensure there is enough electricity if all of those air conditioners are in use on a very hot day. Unsurprisingly, this has become one of the biggest contributors to rising energy” here…

http://www.esaa.com.au/Library/PageContentFiles/37cd5390-c7ee-4693-9ba0-21c958293d85/The_real_cost_of_air_conditioners.pdf

Oh, and be thankful for each and every one of those solar panels. Each one of them helps cut back on fossil fuel use. Fossil-fuel driven climate change is causing Australia to get a lot hotter and will bring a lot more AC units on time as temperatures climb.

Let’s spend small money on renewables rather than large money on anti-bake-our-butts measures.

Be cognisant that fossil fuel shills advocate research into areas unlikely to lead to quick returns as a way of delaying more immediate solutions.

CO2 levels are increasing rapidly, leading to an incoming/outgoing energy imbalance, significant latent heat capacity in the earth’s oceans and ice mean that the temperature increases observed at the surface so far have been modest but increases will start to accelerate.

Because of the urgency we have to focus on more proven renewable technologies, which are still achieving significant improvements in LCOE and are more than adequate to solve the problem.

That is why we must seek Energy from Space, because only that will give us Energy Freedom instead of continued Energy Slavery!

Example:
French Nuclear Disaster Scenario Was So Bad The Government Kept It Secret http://www.businessinsider.com/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3 via @bi_contributors

snip

Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are, we’re incessantly told, very rare, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal.

But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates for an accident in France, kept them secret.

But now the report was leaked to the French magazine, Le Journal de Dimanche. Turns out, the upper end of the cost spectrum of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Dampierre, in the Department of Loiret in north-central France, amounted to over three times the country’s GDP.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/17/solar-power-in-space/