'Solar for Renters' Offers Americans Netflix-Style Subscriptions to Clean Energy (msn.com) 39
"No roof, no solar power. That has been the dispiriting equation shutting out roughly half of all Americans from plugging into the sun," writes the Washington Post's "Climate Coach" column.
"But signing up for solar soon might be as easy as subscribing to Netflix." Scores of new small solar farms that sell clean, local electricity directly to customers are popping up. The setup, dubbed "community solar," is designed to bring solar power to people who don't own their own homes or can't install panels — often at prices below retail electricity rates...
At least 22 states have passed legislation encouraging independent community solar projects, but developers are just beginning to expand. Most existing projects are booked. At the moment, community solar projects in the United States generate enough electricity to power about 918,000 homes — less than 1 percent of total households, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a nonprofit trade group. But as more states join, and the Environmental Protection Agency's "Solar for All" program pours billions into federal solar power grants, more Americans will get the chance...
While projects exist in most states, they are highly concentrated: More than half are in Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York. These might be on a condo roof, or on open land like the 10-MW Fresno community solar farm, on a city-owned plot surrounded by agricultural land. Most are small: 2 megawatts of capacity on average, about enough to power 200 to 400 homes... The renewable energy marketplace EnergySage and the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors connect customers to community solar projects in their region. People generally receive monthly credits for electricity produced by their share of solar panels. These are subtracted from their total electricity bill or credited on future bills... Subscribers on average save about 10 percent on their utility bill (the range is 5 percent to 15 percent).
These economics are propelling the industry to record heights. Between 2016 and 2019, community solar capacity more than quadrupled to 1.4 gigawatts. By the end of this year, energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimates, there will be 6 GW of community solar. And the Energy Department wants to see community solar reach 5 million households by 2025. "The economics are strongly on the side of doing this," says Dan Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "It's now cheaper to build new solar than to operate old fossil [fuel plants]. ... We're at the takeoff point."
The article notes "solar for renters" saves about $100 per year for the average ratepayer (while rooftop solar arrays may save homeowners over $1,000 annually). But according to the article, the arrangement still "reflects a new reality...
"Solar energy prices are falling as private and public money, and new laws, are fueling a massive expansion of small-scale community solar projects."
"But signing up for solar soon might be as easy as subscribing to Netflix." Scores of new small solar farms that sell clean, local electricity directly to customers are popping up. The setup, dubbed "community solar," is designed to bring solar power to people who don't own their own homes or can't install panels — often at prices below retail electricity rates...
At least 22 states have passed legislation encouraging independent community solar projects, but developers are just beginning to expand. Most existing projects are booked. At the moment, community solar projects in the United States generate enough electricity to power about 918,000 homes — less than 1 percent of total households, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a nonprofit trade group. But as more states join, and the Environmental Protection Agency's "Solar for All" program pours billions into federal solar power grants, more Americans will get the chance...
While projects exist in most states, they are highly concentrated: More than half are in Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York. These might be on a condo roof, or on open land like the 10-MW Fresno community solar farm, on a city-owned plot surrounded by agricultural land. Most are small: 2 megawatts of capacity on average, about enough to power 200 to 400 homes... The renewable energy marketplace EnergySage and the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors connect customers to community solar projects in their region. People generally receive monthly credits for electricity produced by their share of solar panels. These are subtracted from their total electricity bill or credited on future bills... Subscribers on average save about 10 percent on their utility bill (the range is 5 percent to 15 percent).
These economics are propelling the industry to record heights. Between 2016 and 2019, community solar capacity more than quadrupled to 1.4 gigawatts. By the end of this year, energy research firm Wood Mackenzie estimates, there will be 6 GW of community solar. And the Energy Department wants to see community solar reach 5 million households by 2025. "The economics are strongly on the side of doing this," says Dan Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. "It's now cheaper to build new solar than to operate old fossil [fuel plants]. ... We're at the takeoff point."
The article notes "solar for renters" saves about $100 per year for the average ratepayer (while rooftop solar arrays may save homeowners over $1,000 annually). But according to the article, the arrangement still "reflects a new reality...
"Solar energy prices are falling as private and public money, and new laws, are fueling a massive expansion of small-scale community solar projects."
It's bookkeeping power (Score:4, Informative)
It gives the end user the warm and comfy feeling that they are generating their own power from green sources. But if the power balance is only calculated at the end of each billing period, they could very well be using power from a coal plant to stay up late at night, shit-posting on Slashdot about how beneficent they are.
Re:It's bookkeeping power (Score:4, Insightful)
But if the power balance is only calculated at the end of each billing period, they could very well be using power from a coal plant to stay up late at night, shit-posting on Slashdot about how beneficent they are.
So what you're saying is 98% of the time they're being beneficent, and it's only that last 2% which doesn't make this worthwhile. Because it's not 100% solar, it can't be considered. Got it.
While we're at it, we can stop making electric vehicles because the energy produced to drive them doesn't come exclusively from renewable sources so there's no benefit to having them.
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger issue is that it's a subscription, i.e. you don't own anything. The same problem as renting - you pay someone else's mortgage, and don't own anything at the end of it.
It would be better to make buying shares of solar and wind farms more affordable for renters, and only for renters or people whose properties don't have a suitable roof.
Re: (Score:1)
It would be better to make buying shares of solar and wind farms more affordable for renters, and only for renters or people whose properties don't have a suitable roof.
Are you implying someone should wave a magic wand which manipulates the stock market? I don't think it works like that.
If you rent and want to "go green", there are plenty of ways of reducing your carbon footprint. I'm not gonna bother repeating them because it comes across as preachy and at this point it's like preaching to the choir anyway, since most people who are concerned about climate change are already well versed in what steps can be taken as an individual.
However, if your rent and your ultimate
Re: (Score:2)
So, a solar co-op? Or a publicly traded company that makes energy via solar cells where you can buy stock in it?
Both sound ok, but why would that model "be better"?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure. Whatever gives the most people who can't have their own solar an opportunity to own some.
Not green at all (Score:2)
So what you're saying is 98% of the time they're being beneficent, and it's only that last 2% which doesn't make this worthwhile. Because it's not 100% solar, it can't be considered. Got it.
If it was 98% of the power that would be great but it isn't. What happens is when the sun shines (or the wind blows in the North East) is all the green power generated plus nuclear and river run hydro exceeds demand. If you look at the spot prices of electricity you will see they actually go negative. Remember we can't store electricity in any meaningful way*. Peak demand in the US south is in the winter when people heat with electricity or at 5pm in the afternoon when the sun is low and everyone turns
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it is bookkeeping power. Bookkeeping power that makes solar projects even more viable and is causing a significant increase in the roll-out of green energy.
No one here gives a shit if the electron is green or brown so long as book keeping is slowly making the green electrons more plentiful.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's Netflix-style, so you can binge all the solar power you want for one low monthly rate and then cancel. I'm looking forward to getting like 10 Tesla Powerwalls and gaming the hell out of this scheme.
Oh, that's not what they meant by Netflix-style? Damn.
Obviously (Score:3)
The article notes "solar for renters" saves about $100 per year for the average ratepayer (while rooftop solar arrays may save homeowners over $1,000 annually). But according to the article, the arrangement still "reflects a new reality...
The people offering "solar subscriptions" are not running a non-profit/charity, they expect to turn a profit, and that profit comes directly out of the anticipated savings from the solar panels...
There are two kinds of renters (for this discussion) - single-family home renters and multi-unit dwelling.
Single-family dwelling landlords typically don't see a financial benefit for investing in solar to help lower the renters utility bill.
Multi-dwelling landlords have the same issue with the added complexity of some housing units being stacked vertically, minimizing the per-unit solar capacity they can install on the shared roof.
I thought this issue was resolved when companies started offering electricity (at a premium, at least initially, years ago) generated from green sources (wind, solar, hydro...).
Re: (Score:2)
> The people offering "solar subscriptions" are not running a non-profit/charity, they expect to turn a profit, and that profit comes directly out of the anticipated savings from the solar panels
The estimated savings appears to be after everyone gets their cut, so this isn't a concern for the end user.
> I thought this issue was resolved when companies started offering electricity generated from green sources
The contract and pricing structure seems to be somewhat different and a bit more streamlined fr
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Texas, and in many, many other markets you can simply select a supplier like Green Mountain and buy electricity from them while the local power company provides the carriage to you home.
Re: (Score:1)
Hm (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like you'd be better off investing monthly in a solar energy fund (or company). That way you make a more direct contribution to solar energy infrastructure build-out AND gain some part ownership of it.
Re:Hm (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like you'd be better off investing monthly in a solar energy fund (or company). That way you make a more direct contribution to solar energy infrastructure build-out AND gain some part ownership of it.
You are right. My best guess is that it is a lot more effort than just checking off a box on your electrical bill, so most people won't do it.
Meanwhile, a cost effective use for solar has been found in my area. We extend substation endpoints.
As new developments get built, some of our substations have reached their limits of usefulness, especially during hot summer days. The fix? One of three options. Don't allow any new developments, build out new lines and substations, or add solar at the substation to pump more power into it.
The first option isn't palatable, the second option is hella expensive, and the third option suffices being much less expensive, doesn't have eminent domain issues or running high tension lines through neighborhoods to just serve a few developments. It also works solar into the infrastructure slowly but surely.
This solar and wind thing? It's happening, and as storage options increase, it will happen even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you'd be better off investing monthly in a solar energy fund (or company).
No doubt but that makes you an investor or even worse, a (*gasp*) speculator. We all know investors are bad, evil, profit-hungry people who just want to destroy the planet.
Meh (Score:2)
.
For signing up the homeowners get paid off with a small percentage of the subsidies given to these "community solar" providers (usually works out to 5% to 10% off your electricity bill). By all means sign up to get a piece of the subsidies (I did) but don't think it isn't anything more than a boon
Sounds better than rooftop (Score:2)
Rooftop solar always sounded like a ridiculously inefficient way to deploy solar to me. You'd imagine there must be economies of scale setting up one 10 MW solar farm versus 1,000 10 kW rooftop installations. Naturally, you'd have to figure in distribution losses too but even then, I'd be surprised if the economies don't work. If nothing else, if I put up panels in a field, I can correctly orient them. I've got to believe most rooftop installations are OK but not optimal.
For what it's worth, I live in San J
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally, you'd have to figure in distribution losses too but even then, I'd be surprised if the economies don't work.
Wholesale cost of electricity is about $0.04/kWh.
Retail cost of electricity is about $0.16/kWh
Unless you think electric companies are performing graft on an epic scale, I'd say those distribution losses are pretty significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Wholesale cost of electricity is about $0.04/kWh. Retail cost of electricity is about $0.16/kWh Unless you think electric companies are performing graft on an epic scale, I'd say those distribution losses are pretty significant.
I just checked my bill. At the lowest tier price, I'm paying about $0.12 for the electricity (I think, the bill is difficult to interpret) and $0.23 for distribution. But bear in mind, this is California, we love making things expensive if that lets us virtue signal.
That being said, I have no idea what the wholesale price of any of this is. It's all rates negotiated with regulators. It could be PG&E is padding the distribution costs and/or the producer gets their costs subsidized. But I wouldn't be surp
Re: (Score:2)
Rooftop solar always sounded like a ridiculously inefficient way to deploy solar to me.
You'd imagine there must be economies of scale setting up one 10 MW solar farm versus 1,000 10 kW rooftop installations. Naturally, you'd have to figure in distribution losses too but even then, I'd be surprised if the economies don't work. If nothing else, if I put up panels in a field, I can correctly orient them. I've got to believe most rooftop installations are OK but not optimal.
Agreed, rooftop solar is an irresponsible waste of finite resources. The last NREL estimate I saw it costs twice as much as the same energy produced by a utility PV farm. On top of that it offers significantly less value to the grid due to reduced efficiency due to lower string and AC voltages, shading/obstructions, suboptimal orientation, no opportunity for bifacial collection and lack of professional maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but rooftop gives you the feeling that you can be offgrid. Not subject to power-cuts and things like that. Decentralization has certain resilience benefits compared to centralization at the expense of efficiency and cost (aka capital that could be invested in other things).
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but rooftop gives you the feeling that you can be offgrid. Not subject to power-cuts and things like that.
True that, but only if you spring for the in-home batteries. I price this about once a year. For my house, I think panels are about $10,000 and a one-day battery is another $10,000. The cost effective answer if I want to deal with power outages is a $1,000 generator from the Depot.
Re: (Score:2)
Having your own panels will become more cost effective as electricity prices increase. My cost per kWh went up 10% last year. It is very likely 10% increases will become a yearly thing. My 11,000 watt system cost me $20,000. Ground mount, my roof runs the wrong way. Even if prices never increase I will recover the cost of the system over its lifespan. Plus living in Florida grid power is not guaranteed.
Where did the $20,000 come from? My neighbor, who happened to want 10 acres of my land that front his
Solar Ponzi schemes (Score:4, Informative)
CA is already suffering from saturation problems with just their existing solar capacity. Lets not forget even California the bastion of environmentally conscious policy pushed NEM 3.0 into effect this year fucking over those who had already invested in rooftop solar.
What happens as PV farms churn out more power than anyone could use? Who is going to buy energy from the operators and at what cost when the utility is increasingly preoccupied with sinking what they can't use? Not only will value of solar energy be decreased the cost of dispatchable energy will increase to cover higher proportions of capital costs in face of lower aggregate volume.
At least from what I can tell the way these things are currently structured is that people can bail with 3 months notice leaving the owners of the solar farm left holding the bag once the solar market saturates. A much better scenario than investing tens of thousands of dollars for your own PV array only to have the deal altered in the utilities favor. The grid after all exists to sell power not act as your own personal battery.
I think it's great people see value in not burning hydrocarbons for energy and they want to join the effort in contributing to small scale energy projects. The problem is good intentions are insufficient. There are significantly more cost and environmentally effective ways of achieving these goals such as investing your money in large scale wind projects.
Re:Solar Ponzi schemes (Score:4, Insightful)
A ponzi scheme is pretty close to how I'd describe the community solar plan that FPL offers here in Florida. You basically agree to pay more each month on your bill to have some of your usage offset by solar generating capacity, because your contribution cost is greater than the value of the electricity generated (which is applied as a credit on your bill). FPL claims that at some indeterminate point in the future, the value of your solar credit will exceed the cost of your monthly contribution.
As someone already pointed out earlier in the discussion, it's obvious that these schemes are more for people who are concerned about reducing their carbon footprint rather than saving an appreciable amount of money. There are probably better investments available if you're in an unlikely situation where you're a renter but somehow still have extra money burning a hole in your pocket (don't let your landlord find out).
Re: (Score:1)
We have this where I live... (Score:2)
I'm in San Diego county and in El Cajon (part of what we call east county) they just switched us all over to a community solar. SDGE still distributes the electricity and handles billing but the new solar farm generates the power. I can't say I've seen any tangible difference in my bill.
So I guess if it's green, cool. It didn't save me as a user any money at all.
Hopefully, these die (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PV should be on roofs of the building that uses the electricity.
Why do you say this? Solar panels in San Francisco or Eureka (or Seattle or Chicago) sound like pretty marginal ideas. Panels out in California's central valley might work much better, even after accounting for transmission losses. I don't see how you stuff enough panels on a building more than about three stories tall to power the entire thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if one big inverter was a lot more cost effective than a thousand smaller ones.
There seem to be any number of cases where you'd want to
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it extremely valuable for national security. Look Ukraine and Israel. Likewise, look at Florida, 9/11, recent power outages in Texas, etc. The ONLY ones that dealt well are those that have back-up power on buildings, esp. homes. When the grid goes out, if a residential place has PV and storage, they are in OK to great shape. In fact, one of the big issu
Re: (Score:2)
PV is the ONLY electrical generation that can be truly distributed.
I guess. The question is how distributed do you really need it to be. I don't expect invading armies to arrive any time this century so we really only need to consider natural events (storms and where I live, earthquakes). If I had sufficient power plants within a few hundred miles of me, that's plenty good enough.
When the grid goes out, if a residential place has PV and storage, they are in OK to great shape.
No doubt but why are you only considering single-family residential housing? What about apartments? What about businesses? What about government offices? We want all of these to keep running too a
California (Score:2)