Activist Group Spreads Misinformation to Stop US Solar Projects (npr.org) 215
An activist group is spreading misinformation to stop solar projects in rural America
Activist Group Spreads Misinformation to Stop US Solar Projects
An energy company's plans for a solar plant powering 25,000 homes were thwarted after a four-year battle with a nonprofit that teamed with locals to restrict large-scale solar projects, reports NPR. That non-profit's name? "Citizens for Responsible Solar."
"Citizens for Responsible Solar" is part of a growing backlash against renewable energy in rural communities across the United States. The group, which was started in 2019 and appears to use strategies honed by other activists in campaigns against the wind industry, has helped local groups fighting solar projects in at least 10 states including Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, according to its website.
"I think for years, there has been this sense that this is not all coincidence. That local groups are popping up in different places, saying the same things, using the same online campaign materials," says Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Citizens for Responsible Solar seems to be a well-mobilized "national effort to foment local opposition to renewable energy," Burger adds. "What that reflects is the unfortunate politicization of climate change, the politicization of energy, and, unfortunately, the political nature of the energy transition, which is really just a necessary response to an environmental reality."
Citizens for Responsible Solar was founded in an exurb of Washington, D.C., by a longtime political operative named Susan Ralston who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and still has deep ties to power players in conservative politics. Ralston tapped conservative insiders to help set up and run Citizens for Responsible Solar.... And when Ralston was launching the group, a consulting firm she owns got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the foundation of a leading GOP donor who is also a major investor in fossil fuel companies. It's unclear what the money to Ralston's firm was used for. Ralston has previously denied that Citizens for Responsible Solar received money from fossil fuel interests....
[H]er group's rhetoric points to a broader agenda of undermining public support for solar. Analysts who follow the industry say Citizens for Responsible Solar stokes opposition to solar projects by spreading misinformation online about health and environmental risks. The group's website says solar requires too much land for "unreliable energy," ignoring data showing power grids can run dependably on lots of renewables. And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary.
Local politicians fear the political blowback from challenging misinformation, the article suggests — about both solar and wind projects. The result? "A 2022 report by the Sabin Center at Columbia University found 121 local policies around the country that are aimed at blocking or restricting renewable energy development, a nearly 18% increase from the year before."
"I think for years, there has been this sense that this is not all coincidence. That local groups are popping up in different places, saying the same things, using the same online campaign materials," says Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Citizens for Responsible Solar seems to be a well-mobilized "national effort to foment local opposition to renewable energy," Burger adds. "What that reflects is the unfortunate politicization of climate change, the politicization of energy, and, unfortunately, the political nature of the energy transition, which is really just a necessary response to an environmental reality."
Citizens for Responsible Solar was founded in an exurb of Washington, D.C., by a longtime political operative named Susan Ralston who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and still has deep ties to power players in conservative politics. Ralston tapped conservative insiders to help set up and run Citizens for Responsible Solar.... And when Ralston was launching the group, a consulting firm she owns got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the foundation of a leading GOP donor who is also a major investor in fossil fuel companies. It's unclear what the money to Ralston's firm was used for. Ralston has previously denied that Citizens for Responsible Solar received money from fossil fuel interests....
[H]er group's rhetoric points to a broader agenda of undermining public support for solar. Analysts who follow the industry say Citizens for Responsible Solar stokes opposition to solar projects by spreading misinformation online about health and environmental risks. The group's website says solar requires too much land for "unreliable energy," ignoring data showing power grids can run dependably on lots of renewables. And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary.
Local politicians fear the political blowback from challenging misinformation, the article suggests — about both solar and wind projects. The result? "A 2022 report by the Sabin Center at Columbia University found 121 local policies around the country that are aimed at blocking or restricting renewable energy development, a nearly 18% increase from the year before."
It's willful (Score:4, Informative)
and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.
Re:It's willful (Score:4, Interesting)
and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.
Fraud or, as some would say, muh free speech!
Anyway, Climate Town did a video on this recently. Basically, all these "concerned citizens" are literally made up by fossil industry consulting companies to derail renewable projects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.
You are describing the antinuclear movement. Like always with you it is projection. If this is fraud(which it might very well be) then a lot of what the antinuclear movement has done up to this point is fraud too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's willful (Score:5, Insightful)
But, what if it's truthful information, that just isn't liked by one side?
But what if unicorns are real? What if gravity is actually just a giant magnet? What if we lived in a world where people didn't phrase silly opinions in the form of a non-existent question while spreading a false narrative themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's willful (Score:5, Insightful)
So we have an actual solution and a fake one. Carbon capture on any industrial scale is not viable. It's a fake solution
Re: (Score:2)
So we have an actual solution and a fake one. Carbon capture on any industrial scale is not viable. It's a fake solution
That was once said about refining oil. Carbon capture isn't magic. The chemistry is known, pilot plants exist and multiple licensors are in the process of building actual large scale facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
That was once said about refining oil. Carbon capture isn't magic. The chemistry is known, pilot plants exist and multiple licensors are in the process of building actual large scale facilities.
Like the Petra Nova project?
It's not magic, it just doesn't make economic or environmental sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exactly like that project. A 5 year old project that didn't work, demonstrated shortcomings and the lessons of which have been learnt by other companies who are developing amine absorption based carbon capture, one of 10 different methods of carbon capture currently being explored. ... actually a subset of it since the 3 biggest companies currently working on amine absorption all have wildly difference processes to do so.
it just doesn't make economic or environmental sense
No your statement is senseless. The economics of it are entirely dependent on the
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't make sense because while you're wasting time and money on this fossil industry scam, the CO2 captured could've been much more easily prevented from being generated in the first place. With technology that works right now.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't the only ones to fail
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they were. Once of those pilot plants which started construction 5 years ago based on technological understanding from several years before that failed. It is one of 10 different methods proposed to capture carbon, and one of multiple different processes attempting to do it with amine absorption.
Car analogy: You pointed to someone who put squares on their axels and based on that declared the entire concept of the wheel a dead end not worth pursuing.
CCS is very much a developing technology with multip
Re: (Score:2)
1. Getting a deep face gash, followed by healing, multiple plastic surgeries, and months of laser skin treatments to deal with the scarring
2. NOT getting cut in the face.
Your promotion of hydrocarbon-burning+capture indicates you like option 1. However, you're statement about solar panels on your roof tells me that you realize how booger-eating stupid that is, and you're DEFINITELY going with option 2.
Re:It's willful (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that carbon capture does not scale. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (fortunately) fairly small. Getting it out of the air already poses a considerable challenge on an industrial scale, let alone sequestering it in limestone. And that doesn't even try to address the problem of the immense energy needed to do all that.
You know, there is a reason CO2 is such a problem and so hard to break up, yes?
Re: It's willful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Which is why the smart move is to take it out of seawater since it holds some 26x what atmosphere does.
But that is also not cost effective in the foreseeable future.
So isn't by far the current smart move to not put that CO2 put into the atmosphere.
Re: It's willful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the smart move is to take it out of seawater since it holds some 26x what atmosphere does.
I'll bet you would have thought that importing the Gypsy moth was a great idea - cheap silk baby!. 8^)
Okay - tell us what level of CO2 is correct - 1750 levels? Then tell us what happens if we have a Pinatubo level volcanic eruption.
Then tell us how we are going to feed the world. This is not 1750.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that carbon capture does not scale. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (fortunately) fairly small. Getting it out of the air already poses a considerable challenge on an industrial scale, let alone sequestering it in limestone. And that doesn't even try to address the problem of the immense energy needed to do all that.
You know, there is a reason CO2 is such a problem and so hard to break up, yes?
Well - it's small by comparison to the amount of Nitrogen that's still a lot of CO2 to eliminate, and don't forget Methane.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that carbon capture does not scale.
It doesn't scale for direct-air capture, it definitely does scale to exhaust capture, at least for major generators such as power and industrial thermal.
Re: It's willful (Score:2)
Let me know when there's carbon capture devices that people and companies put straight on their exhausts powered by the devices emitting the stuff before they diffuse their crap into our air.
Until that happens, I call the tech bullshit. Gonna be a while.
Re: (Score:3)
One scalable carbon capture technology turns the CO2 into limestone.
Which is awesome! Where is this deployed!?
Oh. Nowhere. But they may have something next year.
I appreciate all the great technologies that we can look forward to. Personally, my favorite is geothermal [newatlas.com]--drill a hole in the middle of a coal plant and use that heat instead of the heat from the coal to boil water.. But should we not build solar energy plants because something like this could come along any day now and would make solar obsolete?
Carbon capture could very well give new life to coal/oil/natural
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you WANT unicorns to be real, I'm not going to stop you believing in them.
Citizens for Responsible Solar says it isn't opposed to solar; just projects that are built on farmland and timberland. Solar panels belong on "industrial-zoned land, marginal or contaminated land, along highways, and on commercial and residential rooftops," Susan Ralston, the group's leader, said in an email.
I've seen several projects pop up in Illinois recently. Most have replaced farm fields. A few have been built where there was no other use obvious for the land, but most have been farm fields. Occasionally they pop up on houses, but most have been farm fields. Some have been built atop factories.
Farm fields are easy to build over. You can't undo the damage done, though, by removing light from a large portion of the fields. Replacin
Re: (Score:3)
Almost half of the cornfields you see in this nation are dedicated to producing an additive for gasoline.
They're using too much water and fertilizer in an unsustainable fashion anyway. As we phase out ICE engine vehicles, there will be plenty of farmland available to put solar arrays. That would generate more than enough electricity to run all of the vehicles, along with plenty of extra to replace fossil fuel power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not recall mentioning "corn fields". Must be someone's prejudice. I rarely see solar "farms" being built upon corn fields. Must be that corn fields are more profitable than solar fields still. Maybe when we've given up on moving in vehicles that will end.
Maybe someone considers them "ugly and replaceable"? They were there before government started pushing alcohol for fuel.30 years ago.
Oh, wait - you mentioned that those corn fields will be solar fields... Is the entire earth supposed to be solar cells
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, are you bitter. Did a gang of solar panels steal your lunch box back in kindergarten?
Not that I know of. They wouldn't have been very efficient back then, anyway, since they'd only recently been invented.
I used to help maintain a solar- and wind-power setup on a property (not a farm) that could run it. I don't now, because my property wouldn't support active solar for more than a few months of the year, and a windmill tall enough to clear the trees would overwhelm the property. Unless I cut down all the trees that are in the way.
But I don't plan on screwing up the landscaping to do that, an
Re: (Score:2)
The article and the summary provide links to articles who point out how their arguments are wrong. Among them are a link showing that solar cells reduce carbon more than planting trees, and a fact check against arguments fighting wind power. At least read the text before spewing your lies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is a valid question 30 years ago, but not anymore. Anyone still claiming we shouldn't be massively increasing investment in multiple forms of renewable energy (including both solar and wind) is either ignorant or lying. The article and summary give plenty of examples for those who still claim the world is flat (err, I mean that renewable energy is bad for the grid).
Re: It's willful (Score:2)
Exactly what all the links in original post do. Explain it to those who still live in the '70ies.
Re:It's willful (Score:5, Insightful)
But, what if it's truthful information, that just isn't liked by one side?
In this case the untruthful information is right out front: the statement that this is a grassroots organization by locals that's in favor of solar, just not right here at this particular spot.
It is not a grassroots organization. It is a centrally organized machine funded by dark money. They don't disclose who is funding them, but I think it's pretty clear that if you could track down the chain of shell think-tanks and nonprofits, you'll find oil companies at the bottom.
People aren't getting paid enough. (Score:2)
It's kind of ridiculous that people get involved in these astro-turf campaigns to like be against kittens or solar power or salt substitute or whatever, not because it doesn't make sense, but because basically only the Micheal Bloomberg presidential campaign really paid enough money to justify the fake enthusiasm. I think hucksters deserve better. You're worth more than the pleasure of just pissing off liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
be against kittens
Plenty of people are anti-kitten. They are invasive species in Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand, and many islands. They have driven many birds and small mammals to extinction.
Misdirection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ralston has previously denied that Citizens for Responsible Solar received money from fossil fuel interests
That may be true - but I bet the organization DID receive money from people who in turn received money from fossil fuel interests.
Re:Misdirection? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It leads back to fossil fuels
2. It leads off shore to an obfuscating entanglement of shell companies in order to hide the fact that it leads back to fossil fuels
Re: (Score:2)
Or it leads back to local/regional utility groups that find it difficult to manage their local grid when it becomes saturated with rooftop solar:
https://www.eenews.net/article... [eenews.net]
How do people like this live with themselves ? (Score:4)
Re:How do people like this live with themselves ? (Score:5, Funny)
What do they say to their kids ?
They explain to them how their trust fund works.
Re: (Score:2)
What do they say to their kids ?
They explain to them how their trust fund works.
Perhaps one that's heavily invested in fossil-fuel companies?
Re: How do people like this live with themselves ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I set up a trust many years ago. My house and many of my assets are owned by the trust.
When I die, my kids avoid probate. Meanwhile, my home and savings are shielded from lawsuits or whatever.
I can go to the country website, look at the parcel maps, and click to see who owns what. About 10% of my neighbors have houses owned by trusts.
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna say "This is why you're getting a new game machine for Christmas". I doubt they're getting paid enough to set up a trust.
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna say "This is why you're getting a new game machine for Christmas". I doubt they're getting paid enough to set up a trust.
I believe the low end people for the most part think they are doing a good thing. They have fallen for the propaganda. They can sleep at night just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt there are many of those true believers (even if they were lied to).
Check this video I posted earlier, it's exactly about this type of astrotufing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It seems pretty clear there are probably just a handful of PR managers that make all that shit up and maybe one guy that maintains the web and social media stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What do they say to their kids ?
Within the span of the next generation, chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective, than the effects of climate change over the same time period. The bill is due for all the previously externalized costs of the environmental damage inflicted by previous generations, and somebody's getting stuck paying for it.
What they need to say to their kids is to get a good education and a well-paying job, because they're going to need
Re: (Score:2)
chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective,
I don't believe that. Most solar and wind projects are new capacity or are replacing old coal plants that are aging out. It's not like we're shutting down new gas turbines.
I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden, but one good thing he did was push through a deal with Indonesia to replace planned coal plants with solar & wind. So the cost is only the difference between the cost of the renewables and the cost of the canceled coal project. The difference is small. In some cases it is negative. We should be looki
Re: (Score:2)
You want me to believe that energy from solar & wind costs less than coal and people all over the world are not aware of this? Seems to me that if this was true that the people selling energy from solar & wind would have a path beaten to their door as if they had the better mousetrap. That is not something that can be kept secret for long, and it is not something anyone in that business would want to keep secret.
Here's a more believable explanation, there's reasonable doubt on solar & wind to
Re: (Score:3)
You want me to believe that energy from solar & wind costs less than coal and people all over the world are not aware of this?
Very much location dependent. Yes, in some places solar and wind energy cost less that coal. In some places they don't. And yes, people know this.
...
If some activist group is spreading lies about solar power projects then it should be almost trivial to counter that with the truth.
ROFL!!!
If the 21st century has shown anything, it has shown that disinformation spreads very well. The idea that that truth will drive out disinformation merely because it's true has been rather viciously disproved.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, mostly what I was referring as a reduction in standard of living was that the holistic process of transitioning to a zero carbon society is going to be costly, and that includes a myriad of things beyond just replacing power plants.
Did the holistic process of transitioning from whale-oil lamps to gas lighting result in a lowered standard of living?
How about the holistic process of transitioning from gas lighting to electric?
The holistic process of transitioning from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles?
No. In general, transitioning to a next generation technology increases standard of living.
Re: (Score:3)
You might think I'm being hyperbolic
I do believe you are being hyperbolic.
So, if you want the same standard of living as today, you'd better be earning more money tomorrow.
Or move out of California.
If California took CO2 emissions seriously then they would not be forcing existing nuclear power plants to close and prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. Reality is finally slapping them in the face to where they admitted they needed to keep the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon from closing.
If California doesn't want people to use portable gasoline generators to "shelter in place" during a power outage then they should not
Re: (Score:2)
Within the span of the next generation, chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective, than the effects of climate change over the same time period.
The evidence you give for this assertion is less than persuasive. Technology tends to get cheaper with time, and we are very early in the learning curve with solar... and despite that, it's still remarkably cheap.
And one anecdote about somebody who used an electric car in a blackout is not indicative of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in your paranoid delusions. Do you right-wing nuts actually believe that kind of nonsense?
Re:How do people like this live with themselves ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, we've had people doing exactly this to the nuclear industry for half a century now. What do those people say to their grandkids and great-grandkids?
Re: (Score:3)
Normal people who support nuclear power can understand fears people have about it, particularly before global warming was such a concern.
Nuclear opponents range from the concerned to the deluded, but they are rarely evil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, we've had people doing exactly this to the nuclear industry for half a century now.
That's different. The nuke-phobes may be wrong, but they believe they are right.
The people spreading anti-solar FUD are lying scumbags. They know what they are saying isn't true and they know it is harmful. They say it because they are paid to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear industry's problems are entirely of its own making.
If it was activists then it wouldn't be a problem in countries where activism isn't allowed or doesn't happen. It also wouldn't be an issue for any government considering it a matter of national security (because it is needed for medical purposes and nuclear weapons).
If activists really had the power to sabotage nuclear energy, the world would be a very different place.
Re: (Score:2)
What group are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
But you knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
No is going to roll over and surrender (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be foolish to believe those with a financial interest to combat renewable energy are going to just give up. The oil industry has been fighting against other forms of energy since electricity was first invented.
We simply have to beat them, just as they have been beaten before. If local governments are fighting against solar and wind energy, just make sure federal infrastructure dollars are contingent on an expansion in renewable energy investment locally. Dollars talk.
Re: No is going to roll over and surrender (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The oil industry has been fighting against other forms of energy since electricity was first invented.
The oil industry doesn't much care about alternative energy sources like wind and solar because petroleum is largely used for transportation fuels, lubricants, plastics, and a handful of other products. There is a tiny fraction of oil that is used to produce electricity.
The natural gas industry loves wind and solar power because they know that only natural gas can provide a reliable and fast acting backup for a reasonable cost. There's evidence of natural gas interests funding wind and solar advocacy.
The
Things that should make you go "hmm???" (Score:2)
Putting aside the obvious counter-argument that this is automatically B.S. given the political affiliations, one should take a look at what's happening around Desert Center in California. There are massive, as in "can be seen from space" solar fields going up. The construction requires that the land be completely cleared. I'm amazed that environmentalists haven't chained themselves to the construction equipment to protest the destruction of habitats of the desert tortoise or any other endangered species.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
That's the project in "Desert Center" that's been hit with these very protests. The people described in the article use ecological arguments, as you say, as their primary path of attack, and co-opt Greens, in many cases, to do the work of oil and gas firms. Which, of course, makes it a hot topic in environmentalist circles.
Solar isn't so much "politically favored" as it is "popular with Greens who don't want 2C warming" and it is also another popular thing, which is "ch
It's worse than you think (Score:2)
One doesn't need any organized effort to oppose solar power. People are deluded enough about covid and 5G they'll make things up on their own [ydr.com]:
Melanie Mantegna was also concerned about potential health issues the farm could cause.
“We’re already being poisoned with 5G,” she said. “You’re not going to poison us with your crap.”
Mantegna held up a stack of papers she claimed were government documents that prove “coronavirus came from 5G." She also said she had a video of Bill Gates admitting to these claims, but the board declined to watch it.
Can you guess which political party she's a member of?
Re: (Score:2)
logic fail (Score:2)
And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary.
while I am sure these guys are closed minded agenda driven lunies, it doesn't help when you use broken arse logic like this. Nothing in that article suggests it doesn't destroy the land, it merely states the benefits outweigh the negatives. When you use garbage logic like that to fight them you are making their job easier.
Re: logic fail (Score:3)
Agriculture also wrecks land. So does development. It is just a matter of what you want to wreck the land for. If you build on top of farmland you are just using land that has already been wrecked.
If a farmer wants to lease or sell his land for solar, why should we stop them? We already have too much farmland and we imagine all sorts of ridiculous things to use corn and soybeans for to justify it. We have to heavily subsidize farmers to allow them to continue this overproduction. Overall, the solar panels a
Intolerance (Score:2)
So she’s not just wrong, it’s disinformation. People should just oppose her, they shouldn’t be allowed to hear her.
You Americans have really forgotten how to have civil political opposition, haven’t you?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is lying -- as in, intentionally stating falsehoods -- then damn straight, they should be shut down and not allowed the luxury of an audience.
Fraud is fraud.
Fraud does not deserve an audience.
Fraud is not protected speech. [google.com]
Evidence to the contrary? (Score:4, Insightful)
The blog "evidence" makes some good points, but also bad ones.
The competition for high quality land is just a silly waste. However you dice it, combined use reduces the productivity of the land. Grazed grass still needs to grow, so lower productivity means more acreage needed. That it can compete with other useless uses of arable land like corn fuel ethanol is hardly good reasoning, that shouldn't exist either.
Stop using ethanol for fuel, build parks where you don't need the agrarian land any more, build HVDC and put the solar panels in the desert where they belong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The land usage would be less than expected.
Well... Of course if you force to build only solar on arable land, you can get that results. But because it's a less profitable approach, that cases should be negligible.
Most "only solar" parks use non-arable or very low value land in first places, because it's the most economic approach.
But in case of hybrid usage, known as agrivoltaics, the crops used don't reduce the production because the solar. That's because not every crop is limited by the solar income. They
Great, now look at otherside (Score:2)
"Misinformation" on both sides (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is that the people who are pro-solar don't want to ever hear about the obvious downsides of solar, or the ways in which it has failed so many people. We are in California, and we have large solar panels on our home. That should save us a lot on our power bill, right? It doesn't. The basic idea is that the Solar Panels power our home. When we need more power, it comes from the grid, when we generate excess power, it flows out to the grid. The details you don't hear much about are the details that matter - price. For power we use from the grid, we get charged $0.48 / kWh during peak hours (4-9pm) and $0.42 / kWh during non-peak hours. But when WE send power OUT to the grid, they are only paying US about $0.02 / kWh. Can anyone legitimately explain that disparity? We are literally getting ripped-off. Not to mention that in the winter, the solar panels do almost nothing for us. The solar panels generate nothing at night and very little during the day (clouds), while the heater, which represents the bulk of our power usage, runs primarily at night. We paid $30k+ for this setup just to basically pump free power out to the grid and get almost nothing in return. It's a borderline scam. Meanwhile people in the south are paying ~$0.12 / kWh for their power. The expensive prices we pay for power here in CA, while they also work to ban fireplaces, gas appliances, and encourage charging electric cars at home, means that people are paying thousands each month for their power and the bill is only going up each month. This is really hurting low-income families. Aren't those the people who the current politicians in office are supposed to be helping?
California Public Utilities Commission https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NEM/ [ca.gov]
Net Energy Metering
More than 90% of all megawatts (MW) of customer-sited solar capacity interconnected to the grid in the three large IOUs’ territories are on net energy metering (NEM) tariffs. Under NEM tariffs, participating customers receive a bill credit for excess generation that is exported to the electric grid during times when it is not serving onsite load, offsetting energy costs. On a month-to-month basis, bill credits for the excess generation are applied to a customer's bill at the same retail rate (including generation, distribution, and transmission components) that the customer would have paid for energy consumption according to their otherwise applicable rate structure.
NEM customer-generators must pay the same non-bypassable charges for public services as other IOU customers, which includes Department of Water Resources bond charges, the public purpose program charge, nuclear decommissioning charge, and competition transition charge. NEM customer-generators are exempt from standby charges.
At the end of a customer's 12-month billing period, any balance of surplus electricity is trued up at a separate fair market value, known as net surplus compensation (NSC). The NSC rate is based on a 12-month rolling average of the market rate for energy. That rate is currently approximately $0.02 to $0.03 per kWh (for up-to-date NSC data, follow these links: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E). This rate structure was established in Commission Decision (D).11-06-016 pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 920 (Huffman, 2009).
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds amazingly bad. Over here in NJ, my electric comes cost out to a little under $0.19/kWh. My electric meter has separate counters for electric in and electric out. The bill reports both numbers, and I get charged for the net usage.
I've only had my solar panels for a few months so I don't have a ton of data yet, but even in the winter time on a sunny day they're generating 50-75% of the electricity I use.
I know I get some sort of payment once a year for what I've exported, but we haven't had the pa
Re: (Score:3)
...For power we use from the grid, we get charged $0.48 / kWh during peak hours (4-9pm) and $0.42 / kWh during non-peak hours. But when WE send power OUT to the grid, they are only paying US about $0.02 / kWh....
I recommend you invest in batteries, and send nothing to the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a misunderstanding of his utility rate. Batteries never pay for themselves, at least not under either NEM 1.0 or NEM2.0. They might under NEM 3.0, just before it's time to replace them ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Current PG&E rate plan info as of Feb 1, 2023 :
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf
They go up to $0.49/kWh on peak in the ETOU-C rate schedule in the summer.
$0.48/kWh on peak for ETO-UD in the summer.
None of the consumer rates go below 29 cents/kWh, and that's off-peak in the so-called winter season from October 1 to May 31 . Who knew California had 8 months of winter ?
You don't have a choice of local grid operator in California. In some
Re:"Misinformation" on both sides (Score:4, Informative)
I've always been baffled that people think they should be able to sell power back to the grid at retail rates. Generators sell at wholesale prices. Why should an electrical company be forced to buy expensive power when cheap power is coming out of the generators?
There are several things you've apparently not considered when it comes to the rate you are paid. Your rates are not just paying for electricity but also the transmission system and a fee for the maintenance of that system. The transmission system is being used regardless of which way the electricity flows and that has to be paid for. Where I live transmission charges now dwarf actual electrical charges. You can argue about what is reasonable for transmission (we certainly do!).
Secondly, there's the issue I first mentioned about wholesale electrical rates. Your power is quite costly to the power company.
Finally there's the issue that peak solar does not line up with peak demand. So having to deal with lots of home solar installations is quite a burden for the electrical companies to manage and make things balance.
So honestly the only way that home solar makes any sense at all once these issues are taken into consideration is if you can go off grid entirely, or if you could affordably store your own surplus power. I love the idea of solar but the way it's sold these days is a bit of a scam, frankly. You're being promised something (that the electrical company will always buy back your surplus and act a s giant battery) that is just not always true.
Until every home has sufficient battery storage, think the most realistic use of solar currently is to use it in a home in isolation (dedicated circuits not connected to the grid) and for specific purposes on a smaller scale. For example, running an A/C system. Your peak need for AC coincides nicely with peak solar.
The ideal of using an EV as solar storage is also interesting, although most people would not have their car home during the middle of the day when your surplus is the greatest.
Re:"Misinformation" on both sides (Score:4, Informative)
GotNoRice,
The $0.02cents is the generation rate that you get paid if you are a net exporter of electricity on an annual basis. That can only happen if you oversized your PV system compared to your electricity consumption.
Under normal circumstances, that's not the case. You get a credit for the kWh you export to the grid, and get a charge for the kWh you pull from the grid. With PG&E, it would be at one of the rates below :
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf
If the $ total of your bill exports and bill imports is negative, it is zero'ed, meaning you won't get a check from the utility in that situation. However, if the kWh total of your exports and imports is negative, meaning you are a net exporter, you get paid for your kWh at the generation rate, which is indeed low. But this is an abnormal situation. Usually you size your PV system to cover no more than 100% of your electricity consumption, so this low $0.02 rate would not apply.
I have had solar in California for 12.5 years with PG&E in California. The way the rates work is very complex, and to make that worse, they change multiple times a year. So, you may be forgiven for not fully understanding them.
I can confidently say that my solar panels have saved me tens of thousands of dollars, and paid back for themselves around the 7 year time frame. In fact, I had about 3 years during which my bill was just the $5/month minimum monthly charges, while on the PG&E E-6 rate.
My E-6 grandfathered rate expired at the end of 2022 and I got automatically moved to ETOU-C.
Most of the solar production now happens in off-peak times, before 4pm. That means I get paid between 34-42 cents in the summer season, and 29-37cents in the winter season, depending on baseline. A bunch of consumption happens during peak hours (4pm to 9pm) during which I get charged somewhat more - 41-49cents in the summer, and 31-39 cents in the winter. This is by no means the majority of our consumption, though. Our 2 EVs charge at night, usually after 10pm, depending on when the JuiceNet smartgrid demand program decides to charge them, but never in on-peak times. The 2 EVs account for about 25% of our total (not net) consumption.
I first put 28 panels of 235W in 2010, filling one roof side on the southeast. I then added 12 panels of 240W in 2012, filling another southeast roof, when we got our first BEV. Last year, I added 16 panels of 395W and 14 panels of 380W, on the northwest sides. They are in the process of getting permitted. I'll be switched to NEM 2.0, which won't be as favorable as NEM 1.0. This means 2.3 cents per kWh of my imports will not be able to be offset by solar export credits..
https://aurorasolar.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-nem-2-0-part-1-non-bypassable-charges/
This is still pretty good, compared to the NEM 3.0 that new California solar users will have to put up with after April of this year. Don't get me started on NEM 3.0. I fought politically all I could, but the utilities won that battle.
In any case, the predictions (PVWatts) says all 70 of my panels will generate about 25 MWh annually. Our consumption has been about 25 MWh the last 2 years. So, it's sized to cover 100% of electric needs.
If we didn't have solar, in the E-1 rate, we would owe between 33 - 41 cents * 25,000 = between $8250 - $10250 a year in electricity charges.
With solar, in the worst possible case, where the consumption and generation sides never coincided temporally, we would pay 25000 * 2.3 cents $575/annually of non-bypassable charges.
Then we would also owe the difference between peak and non-peak rates. Worst case, the difference is 7 cents/kWh between off-peak and on-peak summer rates, and 2 cents in the winter season. Since the summer season is 4 months and the winter season 8 months, let's call it (7*4+2*8)/12 = 3.66 cents/kWh. This also assumes the consumption and production sides never overlap temporally. So we're talking about 25000 * 3.66 = $915/year.
In reality, I expect about 75% of those charges (meaning I consume about 25% of my solar production onsite). So it would be (575 + 915) * .75 = $1117/year. Much much less than $8250-10250 without solar.
Re: (Score:2)
A Tesla model 3 costs doesn't take gas, starts at $42,990, and is probably not comparable to any econobox, so I don't think it makes sense to compare it based on fuel costs only. If you compare different cars, you'll also want to take into account the vehicle cost, insurance, maintenance, etc. Ie. TCO
On the other hand, my own 2015 Volt, a PHEV, can take either electricity (for 37 miles), or premium gasoline (for longer range).
$3.12 / gallon is unheard of around here in San Jose . It's closer to $5. I paid a
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't understand why governments don't just encourage PHEV sales as a transition between full EV and IC. There was a study done that PHEV Jeep owners actually plug in [autoblog.com], so a PHEV does move fuel consumption away from fossil fuels. People will argue that the perfect is the enemy of the good and we need to just move to EVs... but having some transitory thing will at least move the hardcore holdouts, and help with edge cases where someone lives in an apartment complex where there are no chargers availab
Same way Big Oil and Coal went after Nuclear (Score:2)
When Nuclear power had promising developments with the Integral Fast Reactor, Big Oil undermined it in a similar way.
First they reframed the mission of Greepeace, who was always drawing scrutiny to Oil and Coal projects into one that was scrutinising Nuclear power, when it was actually more concerned about nuclear weapons.
Then when all the nuclear supporters were distracted and point their vitriol at Greenpeace, Greenpeace were no longer able to draw attention to Big Oil's activities and keep them under
Property Values and NIMByism (Score:2)
* you get free energy for life
* you get 0.5% of the profits
* you get a one time payment of $10000
No Citizens for Responsible Oil (Score:2)
It's an Oxymoron.
Intellectual honesty (Score:3)
If the groups lobbying against wind & solar were intellectually honest -- to themselves AND others -- about their motives (vs, driven by a burning desire to "own the libs"), they'd be simultaneously campaigning for new nuclear power plants.
I live near one of the largest nuclear power plants in America (Turkey Point @ Miami, which now has 4 reactors), and think it's positively ABSURD that there aren't at least 4 more under construction elsewhere in Florida right this minute (say... LaBelle, Jacksonville, Crystal River, and somewhere in the Panhandle).
Not to mention, Disney's broken promise to build one in Orlando, which some fsck'ing idiots NOW think was a *threat*, and not one of the biggest SELLING POINTS for the legislate to approve Reedy Creek back in the 1960s. I think we should MAKE Disney keep its promise and build a nuclear power plant somewhere on their property, cost (to Disney) be damned. For what they now charge for a burger, fries, and soft drink at their parks, they can AFFORD it.
The real problem is their is truth in it (Score:2)
Problem is, why are Fossil fuels taking a side on this? We have our own set of china backed trolls here ( such as drinkypoo) that fight against the west doing Nuclear or geothermal, but is just fine with China doing it ( or anything they want ). And that makes perfect sense for China to block us from going into an industry. They want dominance
lawyer up and bend over (Score:3)
Comparisons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the points made in the website can be offered solutions or debunked with a bit of discussion, But discussion is something we just don't do anymore thanks to the stupid internet politics.
Re: (Score:3)
The article about solar "taking too much land" is really all about issues with Germany's attempt at rapid adoption of renewables.
The "power grids can run reliably" link talks a little about Germany but seems to be trying to say "hey it is possible even if Germany has not been perfect", while also totally ignoring the argument from the website noting now much more Germans have to pay for power now than they used to, which is still true and not addressed.
Germany's longer term issues also have to do with shuttering Nuclear. But the reliability thing is fairly well addressed.
Coal, gas, and Nuclear plants are all a lot more centralized than renewables, so there's a lot more potential for one of those to go down and destabilize the grid.
With renewables, it's so diverse, both in source and geography, that overall generation is pretty stable.
There's still occasional wide range drops, and even black swan events that put a massive dent in generation. But having bat
Re: (Score:3)
There's still occasional wide range drops, and even black swan events that put a massive dent in generation. But having batteries and NG as a backup doesn't mean you can't go 100% renewable for 90% of the year and fire up the gas generators for the rare times you need it.
No, it's just hugely inconsistent so it's more like 90% renewable 50% of the year. You can easily see here on the 30 day production chart: https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There's still occasional wide range drops, and even black swan events that put a massive dent in generation. But having batteries and NG as a backup doesn't mean you can't go 100% renewable for 90% of the year and fire up the gas generators for the rare times you need it.
No, it's just hugely inconsistent so it's more like 90% renewable 50% of the year. You can easily see here on the 30 day production chart: https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
Less consistent than I thought, though depending on cost you can afford to overbuild. As long as there's active carbon intensive electricity on the grid it's profitable to keep adding renewable capacity until you're at 100% renewable at peak generation times.
At that point new capacity becomes less profitable, but can still be a profitable investment. Especially if you add storage for the surplus you didn't sell at generation time.
Re: (Score:2)
it's more like 90% renewable 50% of the year.
I'm not seeing the problem? If we can get there in the near-term, that would be fantastic.
As we work out storage, that will only increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Vertical solar panels on grazing land might have low enough impact that it's not too bad. Can still go through with a small tractor to fertilize the land and do say haying at least (though any crops which need combine harvesting are right out).
Everything else has ridiculous amounts of overhead (like the first image on the wikipedia page) and/or ridiculously low farm productivity (like the tomato plant image and even the sheep grazing, proper pasture needs to be fertilized eventually).
Re: Trans people have a 50% suicide rate (Score:2)
The religious KKKooks always need a witch to burn. Before this it was gay men, and before that it was blacks.
Nothing like a KKKommon enemy to hate to unite the KKKongregation.
And they cry and fawn about people leaving "The Church" and all of the empty pews and collection plates on Sunday. Must've been that wily "O' Hare" (a long dead fossil who was off her rocker and any serious athiest would disassociate from).
Re: (Score:2)
I love this juxtaposition:
If you're gay you learn to accept it, yet if you're trans you go to the doctor to be altered.
there's no logic anywhere to be found!
Indeed, my good man, indeed.
But do you really not see the difference?