1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

The Problem With Rooftop Solar That Nobody Is Talking About

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by usbseawolf2000, Jan 19, 2016.

  1. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Mother Jones finally caught up to this issue we've discussed on PriusChat. Sierra Club needs to wake up.

    A couple of years ago, Steven Weissman, an energy lawyer at the University of California-Berkeley, started to shop around for solar panels for his house. It seemed like an environmental no-brainer. For zero down, leading residential provider SolarCity would install panels on his roof. The company would own the equipment, and he'd buy the power it produces for less than he had been paying his electric utility. Save money, fight climate change. Sounds like a deal.

    But while reading the contract, Weissman discovered the fine print that helps make that deal possible: SolarCity would also retain ownership of his system's renewable energy credits. It's the kind of detail your average solar customer wouldn't notice or maybe care about. But to Weissman, it was an unexpected letdown.

    To understand his hang-up, you need a bit of Electricity 101. If you have solar panels on your roof, the electrons they produce flow across the electric grid like water, following a path of least resistance. As they whiz around, electrons are impossible to track and look identical, whether they're coming from solar panels, a coal plant, or whatever. But there is value in keeping tabs on the renewable ones, so energy wonks came up with renewable energy credits (RECs), a tradable financial instrument that corresponds to a certain amount of energy produced by a certain renewable source like solar or wind.

    Because RECs have value—ranging from under a penny to a buck or two for each hour's worth of electricity your roof produces, depending on the state, companies like SolarCity can sell them and thus help justify giving you the solar panels for little to nothing. The biggest buyers of RECs are power companies looking to satisfy state-mandated clean-energy requirements, known as renewable portfolio standards. In effect, the power company pays for the right to claim the climate benefits of the panels on your roof.

    It sounds like an esoteric distinction, but it matters: By selling the RECs instead of keeping them for yourself, you could just be helping the utility meet a goal it was already mandated to meet—thus helping excuse it from building more solar capacity itself. In other words, your direct net contribution to reducing greenhouse gas pollution is nil.​

    The Problem With Rooftop Solar That Nobody Is Talking About | Mother Jones
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    That sounds like they have problems with solar city's business model, not with rooftop solar.

    I think its pretty clear that FIT in germany has been more sucessful than many of the california schemes, but then again california's power is a lot lower in ghg than the average for the nation. With low natural gas prices, and wind costing much less unsubsidized than solar /kwh solar's growth is all about regulation.

    Many would say that subsidizing solar is still a good idea. I'm in that group. If the country has 5% solar in 2030 even if it costs $0.10/kwh more than natural gas if you spread it then it only averages a $0.005/kwh in increase. By 2030 the spread should be lower.
     
  3. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Not only Solar companies are doing that scheme. Wind power in TX is also being schemed the same.

    As I've said before, if you paid for 'clean electricity' and did not get a REC, you've been duped.

    I am all for renewable energy but against this deception. I will not be part of this scheme just to show support for renewables. Instead, I will raise awareness.
     
  4. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Seems to me Solar City is giving a good deal so deserves the REC. If so inclined you can pay what? $25000 lump sum for your own system, and keep the credits to yourself.
     
    xpcman, hill and Zythryn like this.
  5. San_Carlos_Jeff

    San_Carlos_Jeff Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    871
    160
    0
    Location:
    Northern California
    Vehicle:
    2012 Chevy Volt
    Model:
    N/A
    Why not either buy the panels outright, or alternatively, use a company that finances panels that you ultimately end up owning?

    Wind is a little different. As I understand it, most wind machines would never be installed if they weren't being backed specifically to help utilities meet their renewable goals.
     
  6. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    107,571
    48,862
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    so is there another route that is cheaper and easier for homeowners?
     
  7. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,155
    4,146
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    This is no deception, this is business.
    In the case of solar panel leasing, such as with Solar City, you get a discount off the cost of the panels and inverters, they get the RECs.
    If you sign a net metering agreement with the utility, they pay you for the excess solar production of your panels. In return, they get the RECs.
    If you don't like it, don't sign the net metering or interconnect paperwork and go off grid.
     
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    What are you talking about "green Choice" doesn't sell recs. Wind in texas is not schemed, its completely open and audited. Every goal of the state is blown through early then new goals are set.
    I don't think these california consumers are duped either. Its the way the system works in that state. People putting up solar get lower priced electricity. Those getting it from the big utilities pay to subsidize. They aren't duped its the way the system works in that state. They can pay more and keep it, or they can sell it.

    Solar in texas works the same way. If you take extra money from the utilities they get the recs, if you don't well you pay more.
    Talk to california PUC, they set up the system you seem so upset about. But, .... California is installing solar faster than any other state, so you may want to talk to NY, where they have ineffective programs.
    Selling the recs is the cheapest for homeowners to install solar. Only it doesn't build more solar than the state requires, it just shifts the building.

    Whether solar city or your local contractor + bank loan is cheaper or easier is variable based on localities. If you sell the recs then you don't get to claim "green", but you often pay less than if you stay a regular customer of the utility. That is the system in california.
     
  9. finman

    finman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    1,287
    111
    0
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    Vehicle:
    2014 Nissan LEAF
    This just in, there may be a problem with fossil fuel electrical generation...

    give me a break.

    and in other related news...the Mirai 'wins' another 'award'.

    The world gets crazier every minute.

    It's related, 'cause sunshine is supposed to power that loser.

    WTH. But using solar to power BEVs at over 3 times the efficiency versus fool-cells is somehow bad?

    I just can't stand it sometimes.
     
  10. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    I thought the issue was clearly stated. The deception is in marketing/advertising and what's not being delivered.

    Upfront cost ($20-40k) is a barrier. Financing is a better choice than leasing but a lot of people don't want to go through the process of getting everything lined up (paperwork and multiple inspections) and get it installed. It took me 6 months to get mine done.
     
    #10 usbseawolf2000, Jan 19, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  11. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    From your op
    Weissman is pretending as are the authors of the article, that he thought he should be able to put up solar for less money Not just getting something for nothing, but getting something and getting paid to take it.

    We are all adults here. We should all know when something seems to good to be true, well there is a catch. Here the catch is very well publicized.

    Companies like solar city are putting up the panels, you get a lower bill. Someone else at a utility contributes to your lower priced electricity and gets the credit. Its not really hidden at all. If it was it would be fraud. California is the capital of selling these credits and some of the schemes are fraudulent, but this is simply a way to build solar at a lower cost. The utility uses your roof to produce you get money for it. They don't have to raise rates for the non solar customers as much to hit the state or local mandate.

    If you want the solar panels and the credit no problem. Install the solar, and don't sell the credits, or use solar city and buy the credits back. Its not too complicated.

    Oh and federal tax payers pay 30% toward the panels and installation to make it even cheaper for you California solar city customers.

    To me the biggest problem with roof top solar is we don't have enough of it. Setting up a feed in tarrif and streamling regulations and installation requirments as they do in germany would help. With utilties fighting to keep their polluting 40+ year old coal plants going, and cheap natural gas its a tough slog.

    Here is a 2014 article discussing the virtues of the solar city deal.

    Remember the best deals are in places like Massachusetts. Here there is 30% federal + good sun + Srecs to sell with an easy market.

    SolarCity: Better Than Nothing - ScratchPaper
    The state is giving you money in terms of a market for srecs, these are bought by the utilities and raise rates. If the utility can build for less than buy they build.

    Many home owners don't care about credit. here they get the best deal if they can sell the srec themselves, but, often they don't have the up front money for the system, or don't want to take the risk.

    If you do care as a homeowner there are other systems.
    Solar city allows home owners that can't afford to prepay a risk free way into the game. This builds more solar. Not a bad system at that. If you are "rich" though its better to buy, and if you want the credit you need to keep the srecs.
     
    #11 austingreen, Jan 19, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2016
    Trollbait and Zythryn like this.
  12. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    What kind of audit? SOX wouldn't uncover deceptive marketing. It'll just ensure that RECs are not being claimed twice. In this case, the utility gets all the RECs and electricity buyer gets none, perfectly ok with the audit.

    I would say majority of them are. Those with PV system and plugin cars LOVE to claim they are driving with 100% renewable solar electricity, despite charging at night and pulling from fossil power plants. Those are the ones being mislead by solar marketing and duped.

    You are implying that adults don't fall for scams so, deceptive marketing practice is okay.

    The end doesn't justify the mean. That's why the attorney general got involved.

    There are many like Mr. Weissman that would pick solar anyway but the point was the deceptive marketing is not helping. They need to come clean, pun intended.

    The problem is selling the SRECs and claiming you have 100% renewable. I agree that many will sell the SRECs to recoup on the cost. So then, their plugin cars are now on the regional grid mix emission, many resulting in higher emission than a Prius.
     
  13. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Wow you got up on the wong side of the bed today. I posted austin energy's green choice for you at least twice. Stop making these false claims. ERCOT isn't california. If you buy wind in texas, they build you wind. Utilities don't need recs. The audits are paid for by the choice vendors to make sure that customers get full credit for the wind power. Look into instead of repeating this garbage.


    Sounds like a statistic you made up on the spot. Read the discussion on your own quoted post.

    Most people don't give a damn about claiming credit. Those that do, its quite easy to keep the recs, just don't take the money and buy the system instead of lease it.

    In austin most solar take the money, its a lot of money, the utility claims it. In california its about 75% that take the money. My guess is those tesla buyers don't take the money if they are claiming they are driving on sunshine. Most of california's roof top solar is put up to reduce utility costs not to claim renewability. Its not a secret. The state has the renewable mandate so that the utilities buy the renewables. You can read about programs here.

    California Renewable Energy Overview and Programs

    You make it sound like texas and california aren't building any renewables. Its just if you are taking money from the state system by selling your recs, the state gets credit not you. Solar gets built either way. You want the credit, you simply don't take the state incentives, just the federal ones. Simple.


    ERCOT: Wind energy provided record 45% of electricity on Dec. 20 | Utility Dive
    You can't sell recs if you blow away the numbers. Texan's choice built 3x as much wind as the state mandated. There is no market for credits in texas because none was ever needed for wind. Regulations were written so it was easy for consumers and businesses to purchase wind.

    Of course there is no secret that renewable hydrogen isn't getting made. If you want to claim renewable hydrogen, rules should be similar to wind and solar, which means no one in the US should be able to claim renewable hydrogen but doe and state of california. If you are only complying with the california rec, no driver should be able to claim it.
     
    #13 austingreen, Jan 20, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
    Zythryn likes this.
  14. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,600
    11,224
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Any numbers on how many claiming to be using renewable while the RECs are being sold to someone else? Any numbers on whether plug in owners with PV bought the system themselves or are leasing them through a company like SolarCity?
    How is it a scam if it is right in the contract?
    The majority of people care about lowering their electric rates first, and the RECs are a distant second at best.
    Weren't you going to be selling some of your RECs?

    Using the Prius as a benchmark might mean something if it sold in Camry ICE numbers. Even in the dirtiest grid regions, plug ins are still better than the average new vehicle, and even most of the cars.
     
  15. finman

    finman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    1,287
    111
    0
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    Vehicle:
    2014 Nissan LEAF
    Please stop saying EVERYTHING is dirtier than a Prius. it's not. Just stop. it's insanity defined. And, no , please don't show that stupid Toyota graphic again. it's also false.
     
  16. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Well we do know where solar city sells the most recs, california. How does say a new volt do in my old neighborhood 94087 using the dirtier 2012 grid versus a prius.

    Compare Side-by-Side


    160 for the volt versus the prius eco;s 190 versus 110 for the i3.

    Of course you can add solar in california, sell the recs and use one of these cars and that is what you get. Or you can live in a higher ghg state like mine and keep the recs to lower the ghg, or even spend the extra money in california to keep them and be even lower.

    Not most people in california don't care about the credit, they want the money. If they care its pretty easy to keep the recs and spend more. Hey electricity and everything else is expensive in california. If you adjust for the cost of living its got the highest poverty rate in the US. But they do buy more plug-ins than any other state.
     
  17. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Yup, I took out a $12k solar loan that I pay back with 73 SRECs. Based on the estimate, I should earn that in 10 years but my actual has been 30% above the estimate. That means I could be done in 7 years.

    I am entitled15 years of SRECs to I'll still have the last 8 years (about 80 SRECs) that I can keep or sell them.

    I am leaning toward selling them because NJ electricity is pretty clean and my PiP is getting 150 MPGe resulting in cleaner emission than 54 MPG I get with gas. 112 g/mi electric vs. 206 g/mi gas.

    The reason I am getting very high electron economy is because I am using it for low speed, low power and short trips. For gas economy, I use it for high speed, long trips and when I need cabin heat. I have the best of both worlds.

    I was talking about emission benchmark, not sales.

    The reason I choose Prius is because it is the acronym for hybrid and it is NOT subsidized and sold on the free market competing with any other cars (gas, diesel or plugins). So, subsidized plugin cars should at least meet the standard the Prius set, not step backward.

    2016 Volt's national average is 220 g/mi. Outside the compliant states, Volt would emit more than a regular Prius.

    That is the problem. The $7,500 federal incentives are nationwide. We are subsidizing a technology that can pollute more than unsubsidized hybrid.

    You can argue that we are doing it to save gas. Well, selling three 47 MPG Malibu hybrid ($2,500 each) would save more gas than one Volt. They will also use zero electricity, further reducing emission.

    So, the reality is, the plugin incentive is not cost effective even with the massive solar incentive to feed it. The grid is not ready for social benefit. In 5 years, it may be worth it but in my opinion, plugin incentive is a decade premature.
     
  18. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,600
    11,224
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    The incentives weren't just about emissions, and any consideration for improving emissions in the law would be looking at the fleet average, which the Prius makes up a small part of. In the grid regions using the most coal, plug ins get around 38 mpg in terms of carbon emissions. This is far better than that average.

    Using the Prius as the benchmark gives a skewed view. The Camry sold far more than the Prius did last year. It was over 400k cars, with maybe 10% of them being for the hybrid version. So 90% of the Camries sold are 28 or 25 mpg combined, depending on the engine. Any plug in does far better, even in a dirty grid state. Yes, the Prius could do better, but it has been available in the US now for well over decade, and all those Camry buyers aren't flocking over the Prius. The plug ins offer more choice to those people, so their sales, combined with hybrids, will help clean up the fleet.

    Comparing a hypothetical hybrid credit to the plug in one would have weight if there was any chance of it passing Congress. Not stating if I am for or against it, just the political reality. Both hybrids and plug ins would benefit more for a tax on petroleum or fuel, and that ain't likely either.

    tl;dr You can't ignore sales for using an emission benchmark, because better emissions mean nothing if no one buys it.
     
    #18 Trollbait, Jan 25, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2016
  19. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Good for you! Bold italics mine.

    You posted an article about a company selling recs in california for california solar.

    Why do you have such a double standard, and such forcefull arogance against where these things happen.

    My point was is many in california are fine like you are in selling there srecs. Their califonia electricity is pretty clean, in fact cleaner than yours in NJ (thought it was long island, but california electricity where the mother jones article was about is lower in ghg and coal than either).

    Putting a jersey zip in the fuel economy.gov calculator I get 210 mg CO2/mi in a 2015 prius phv, compared to 160 for a 2016 volt in california. Why are people selling their recs and buiding solar in california bad guys, but you are a good guy for doing it on the east coast. Is it because higher ghg is alright if its a prius not a chevy or bmw or tesla? I don't get it.

    For higher ghg states where there is a much lower take rate of plug-ins, if a buyer wants to claim solar, why not. Just don't sell the reqs. If you sell the reqs you get the average of your grid.

    It isn't as if solar city is selling much solar in indiana, and people aren't claiming it for their cars, why pretend that its equally weighted. Indiana does have great wind, biogas, and ethanol resources;) It doesn't have the market like California or Massachusetts for solar credits.
     
    Trollbait, Zythryn and hill like this.
  20. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,608
    8,037
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    the thing is, very few - if any - areas in CA are permitted to even get involved the the REC program. Oh, wait ... as usb calls it ... the rec "scheem". I tried to sign up for it years ago, only to find out it was being shot down here. BTW the evil "scheem" meisters - regarding solar city et al -
    we have several folk here where I work that have chosen these evil scheem'ers - solar city ... only to find out their contract specifically stated exactly what they would get . . . . way reduced electric bills . . . and they're good with that. Colaterally, CA burns less natural gas for it's day-time demand electricity. Yea, I'd start wringing my hands over theoretical issues in other states - if in fact there are even any issues to be found. Is this just a "throw the baby out with the bath water" thing? IE; solar leasing has a crappy dark side, so lets all pray we can afford some day, the big ol' honking natural gas to hydrogen to electricity reformers? Maybe I'm too thick, but I'm really having a hard time finding the point of the OP.
    the biggest problem to me is that Tesla can't make power walls fast enough - so folks can capture their excess day time use, then use it at night - and thus use the grid for pretty much just emergencies, or for days / weeks of high use. Of course this kills utility business models, and they are buisily trying to make PV less & less affordable by tacking on more and more surcharges to us PV "scofflaws". Ironically, the utility company tactics will end up just driving more & more folks onto the powerwall systems ... so "go utility companies - keep on socking it to us renewable folk! ... more fees & surcharges please"
    ;)
    .
     
    #20 hill, Jan 25, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016